netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH/RFC] Reduce call chain length in netfilter

To: Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Reduce call chain length in netfilter
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 02:35:42 +0100
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, bdschuym@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Netfilter development mailing list <netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, snort2004@xxxxxxx, ak@xxxxxxx, bridge@xxxxxxxx, gandalf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, shemminger@xxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1106875946.18360.29.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1131604877.20041218092730@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <p73zn0ccaee.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1105117559.11753.34.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050107100017.454ddadc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1105133241.3375.16.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050118135735.4b77d38d.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1106433059.4486.11.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1106436153.20995.42.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1106484019.3376.5.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1106496509.1085.1.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050125220558.6e824f8a.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1106730510.4041.4.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41F82C6D.7020006@xxxxxxxxx> <20050126231801.7bf90338.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41F929FA.3050800@xxxxxxxxx> <20050127114726.2205b4ed.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41F96FA4.4000105@xxxxxxxxx> <20050127152450.6daba4fa.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1106872169.18360.6.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050127171023.2e8547e1.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1106875946.18360.29.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050106 Debian/1.7.5-1
Rusty Russell wrote:

On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 17:10 -0800, David S. Miller wrote:

In tree, yes.  But leaving the NF_HOOK()/NF_HOOK_THRESH() compat
macros in there for out-of-tree modules I feel is mandatory, it's
a major API change.


I'm not so sure.  The hook functions which are registered, sure (ie.
keep the calling convention the same).  But do any external modules use
NF_HOOK()?  That implies they're writing their own network stack for
some protocol, which I would expect to be uncommon.

Freeswan comes to mind. But I guess one more #ifdef can't hurt :)

Regards
Patrick


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