From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] netfilter: conntrack: replace notify chain by function pointer Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 11:10:45 +0200 Message-ID: <4A263E15.70700@trash.net> References: <20090602181336.18573.85368.stgit@Decadence> <20090602182115.18573.84532.stgit@Decadence> <4A261711.1020208@trash.net> <4A262EE3.8010607@netfilter.org> <4A2633FB.2040807@trash.net> <4A26396D.9000503@netfilter.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Pablo Neira Ayuso Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:61843 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752107AbZFCJKp (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jun 2009 05:10:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4A26396D.9000503@netfilter.org> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > 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. Sure, no objections. Please also update your git tree or change the HEAD to exclude that final patch so I can pull the remaining ones.