netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Allowing netlink_family to be any integer (was: [PATCH 2.6] iptables

To: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Allowing netlink_family to be any integer (was: [PATCH 2.6] iptables CLUSTERIP target)
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:27:24 -0700
Cc: laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, lmb@xxxxxxx, ahu@xxxxxxx, hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20041022231607.GA14365@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20041021142527.GG3551@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <E1CKkWZ-0005x5-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041022160559.28f9c540.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041022231607.GA14365@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 09:16:07 +1000
Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 04:05:59PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 07:31:07 +1000
> > Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > Initially I considered an interface where kernel users can register
> > > themselves using a string as the key.  But I soon realised that we
> > > could simply allow the netlink_family field to be an arbitrary integer
> > > that is used as a key to a hash table.
> > 
> > (I assume you mean "nl_family" not "netlink_family" :-)
> 
> I'm no plans yet in taking over all address families :)
> I'm only referring to the third argument in socket(2).

Color me confused about how your scheme might work.  If
you cook up an example patch, I guarentee it will be worth
your while. 8)


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>