Re: [PATCH 3/8] [NETFILTER]: rename NF_ARP to NFPROTO_ARP and assign a non-clashing value

[Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>]

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Wednesday 2008-04-09 15:42, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>> In this case, I'd just follow AF_ suit.
>>> Especially since NAME_MAX=256, PATH_MAX=4096 for example,
>> Thats a bad example.
>>
>>> _MAX is more often the total size rather than the last element.
>>> (The more even since loops use for (; x < MAX; )
>>> rather than for (; x<= MAX;) as can probably be seen
>>> in a lot of userspace code.)
>> Which is in my opinion a sign of poor coding and leads to
>> off-by-ones. Please don't redefine the meaning of maximum.
>>
> I don't think so. Ask a person on the street:
> 
> 	What's the maximum number of AFs Linux knows about?
> 
> S/He would answer 34, counting up in front of you:
> 
> 	- “it knows UNSPEC, IPV4, IPV6, ... and RXRPC, makes for
> 	a total of 34 AFs”

I'm going to try this. I'll let you know in an hour :)

> So since that just came to my mind, how about using the
> somewhat odd one NFPROTO_TOTAL?

How about just using MAX the way a maximum is defined?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html