Subject: Re: PF for netbsd
To: Manuel Bouyer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: None <email@example.com>
Date: 07/04/2003 09:53:51
>> "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
i don't like m_tag_name2tag, because m_tag is used for other purposes.
the name2tag/tag2name functions are just for PACKET_TAG_PF_TAG tags.