From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] netfilter: conntrack: replace notify chain by function pointer Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 10:50:53 +0200 Message-ID: <4A26396D.9000503@netfilter.org> References: <20090602181336.18573.85368.stgit@Decadence> <20090602182115.18573.84532.stgit@Decadence> <4A261711.1020208@trash.net> <4A262EE3.8010607@netfilter.org> <4A2633FB.2040807@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: Received: from mail.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:48967 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752150AbZFCJIo (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jun 2009 05:08:44 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4A2633FB.2040807@trash.net> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Patrick McHardy wrote: >> Would you be OK with something like: >> >> BUG_ON(notify != new); >> >> So we can catch this very unlikely bug, if so. > > Sure. We don't do this is 99% of the other unregistration functions > however, so I don't think its particulary useful. It only affects > out of tree code anyways, unless we've done something really stupid, > like remove error checking in the initialization function :) I see. Well, I don't have very strong arguments to support this, some of them: if I remove it the unregistration function will not use the parameter anymore and I'd like to keep the register/unregister interface symmetric. Very unlikely but it can spot other problems like memory corruptions? Although in that case, the kernel is more likely to crash. Please, keep it there :). I'm going to send you a new version of this patch to the mailing list. -- "Los honestos son inadaptados sociales" -- Les Luthiers