Hi Paolo Pisati! On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:11:34 +0100; Paolo Pisati wrote about '[patch] ipfw_nat as a kld module':
> http://people.freebsd.org/~piso/ipfw_nat_module.patch > Any objection if i commit it? Some comments: * //comments are not in out style(9) * IPFW_NAT_LOADED - again style(9), CAPSLOCK is used for constants * lookup_nat() duplication - it is short, may be turn to #define macro in .h? * struct ip_fw_chain moved to .h and no longer static, is this good? I suggest to move into it's own static chain in module, see next * Instead of returning IP_FW_NAT function is called immediately from ipfw_chk(). This inconsistent with other modules of this sort, like divert and dummynet, where ipfw_chk() simply returns value and cookie to ipfw_check_*() functions in _pfil.c. If it is done like that, ip_fw2.c is dependent on modules in minimal way, as many of structures and code as possible should be moved to modules. This allows to change module without recompiling main ipfw - for example, your lookup_nat() and LIST_HEAD from ip_fw_chain could reside entirely in module - then it would be possible to easily switch from LIST to hash of some kind (imagine 500 NAT instances). And so on. Maybe I missed some points as I was looking briefly... -- WBR, Vadim Goncharov. ICQ#166852181 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [Moderator of RU.ANTI-ECOLOGY][FreeBSD][http://antigreen.org][LJ:/nuclight] _______________________________________________ freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
