From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH] netfilter: SNMP conntrack module Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 17:15:00 +0100 Message-ID: <4D31C804.5090304@trash.net> References: <20110114201805.GC4546@jolsa.brq.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Tim Waugh , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Jiri Olsa Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:60265 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753284Ab1AOQPB (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Jan 2011 11:15:01 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20110114201805.GC4546@jolsa.brq.redhat.com> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Am 14.01.2011 21:18, schrieb Jiri Olsa: > hi, > > attached patch adds SNMP conntrack module to the netfilter. > > I refer to the following conversation: > http://marc.info/?l=netfilter-devel&m=125992205006600&w=2 > > Patrick McHardy wrote: >> The best solution would be to add generic broadcast tracking, the >> use of expectations for this is a bit of abuse. > >> The second best choice I guess would be to move the help() function >> to a shared module and generalize it so it can be used for both. > > The patch tries to implement the "second best choice". > > In case the 'second best choice' is not good enough anyway, > could you please outline the first one in more detail..? Adding full broadcast tracking is non-trivial, so this is good enough for now. > Also the patch is not adding the "help" function to the > shared module, since I'm not sure where to put it. If the > idea of the patch would be acceptable, could you please > suggest the shared module for the 'help' function? How about adding a nf_conntrack_broadcast.c or something like that and keep the common code there? The help function and the expect policy (probably not really worth it) could be moved to that file. > --- /dev/null > +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_snmp.c Besides Jan comments, the patch looks fine to me.