From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso Subject: Re: [patch] xtables: use guarded types Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 11:24:05 +0100 Message-ID: <4D01FFC5.90808@netfilter.org> References: <4D00B2D7.4010401@netfilter.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Patrick McHardy , Netfilter Developer Mailing List To: Jan Engelhardt Return-path: Received: from mail.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:49915 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753530Ab0LJKZH (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Dec 2010 05:25:07 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 09/12/10 20:25, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Thursday 2010-12-09 11:43, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > >> On 03/12/10 20:13, Jan Engelhardt wrote: >>> parent b880c1f077000956b9f475d5f3b6c5e45ff2e342 (v2.6.37-rc1-241-gb880c1f) >>> commit 4826151aedbe6e364b7b801f026fbe7383904b6a >>> Author: Jan Engelhardt >>> Date: Thu Dec 2 21:01:17 2010 +0100 >>> >>> netfilter: xtables: use guarded types >>> >>> We are supposed to use the kernel's own types in userspace exports. >> >> What's the point to have different headers in the kernel source code >> tree and iptables? > > Because iptables needs to know more structs than the kernel provides. > > But... what does that have to do with the patch? I mean that, after this patch, iptables headers and Linux kernel headers will be out of sync, right?