From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laurent Bercot Subject: Re: [PATCH libnftnl] src: restore static array with expression operations Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 15:58:07 +0100 Message-ID: <551029FF.2070300@skarnet.org> References: <1427111052-5510-1-git-send-email-pablo@netfilter.org> <20150323114411.GH603@acer.localdomain> <20150323123400.GA6511@salvia> <20150323130805.GN603@acer.localdomain> <5510135A.9020809@skarnet.org> <20150323133306.GW603@acer.localdomain> <551016FD.1020909@skarnet.org> <20150323135432.GX603@acer.localdomain> <551020D6.2080502@skarnet.org> <20150323145011.GC603@acer.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: Received: from smtp2.tech.numericable.fr ([82.216.111.38]:35356 "EHLO smtp2.tech.numericable.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752499AbbCWO6G (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:58:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20150323145011.GC603@acer.localdomain> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 23/03/2015 15:50, Patrick McHardy wrote: > I would be surprised if the alternative provides a much smaller > binary. Basically everything is referenced through the registered > structures and functions called from there. I don't think it > makes any difference. It's the case for now, but it might not be in the future. Else, why keep libnftnl as a separate package from nftables? > Well, we would like to keep the callbacks. We can continue to > look for a different solution. But either way you will have > tons of potentially unused functions in there since the library > resolves a lot of things at runtime. I understand that, and don't mind the current 600k that much. I am opposed to linking with --whole-archive on principle, but I'll take any other solution that suits you. Any *clean* solution, I mean. ;) -- Laurent