Vadim Goncharov wrote:
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)
in case this is cryptic to you..
do
"man 9 style"
* 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...
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
