Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 3 Nov 2002 07:02:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 3 Nov 2002 07:02:31 -0500 Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]:51722 "EHLO netcore.fi") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 3 Nov 2002 07:02:30 -0500 Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 14:08:49 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka Savola To: Andras Kis-Szabo cc: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / =?UTF-8?Q?=E5=90=89=E8=97=A4=E8=8B=B1?= =?UTF-8?Q?=E6=98=8E?= , , Netdev , Netfilter Devel , "David S. Miller" , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Functions Clean-up In-Reply-To: <1036328414.1048.3.camel@arwen> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1119 Lines: 27 On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, Andras Kis-Szabo wrote: > > - export route6_me_harder() as ip6_route_harder() and > > use it from net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6_queue.c. > Opsz! > At the extension parser code we got that decision that we should use > our own parser in the Netfilter code! (And we should not to trust in the > kernel.) > This patch removes one function from the Netfilter code and forces the > Netfilter to use a similar function from the kernel's one! And why is that a problem? If there is a problem in main kernel code, it should fixed. If the netfilter version is better, the main kernel code should be changed. Are there specific reasons to keep them separate? -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/