Subject: Re: PF for netbsd
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Manuel Bouyer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/03/2003 14:50:35
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 08:54:22PM +0900, email@example.com wrote:
> >> new diff is avaialble, this time includes IPsec-with-PF diff.
> >As far as I can tell, qname_to_qid() & all aren't dependant from pf but
> >rather from altq. Maybe they should be moved to altq instead ?
> kjc will do something about it.
OK, I'm waiting on it.
> >Also, it seems tagname2tag() & friend is back into pf code, is it
> >intentionnal ?
> see conversation w/ darrenr. anyways it's back in uipc_mbuf2.c.
I didn't see this, I musr have missed it.
> >Also there should probably be no
> >#if NPF > 0
> >in non-pf code (ipsec and altq).
> >And really, I'd prefer to have the struct and functions names for the
> >m_tag stuff with another prefix than pf. It makes the code much more readable
> >when each subsystem's name is properly prefixed, and really confusing when
> >the same prefix is used for different subsystems.
> "tag" is already used for m_tag, so i guess "pftag" is the best name
> i can think of.
It's not 'tag' which makes me unconfortable, it's 'pf'. This has nothing
to do with the PF code once moved to uipc_mbuf2.c.
It's used by both packets classifiers (pf, ipf, other classifiers) and
tag consumers (altq, ipsec).
As far as I can tell, m_tag related functions are all prefixed with m_tag,
not tag. And a m_tag prefix for these functions looks fine to
me (m_tag_name2tag(), m_tag_tag2name(), etc), as they're really related to
Manuel Bouyer, LIP6, Universite Paris VI. Manuel.Bouyer@lip6.fr
NetBSD: 24 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference