From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maximilian Wilhelm Subject: ct_sync-multigroup (was: Re: Made ct_sync running with 2.6.15.4...) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 01:37:45 +0200 Message-ID: <20060404233745.GA26006@rfc2324.org> References: <20060311033122.GA23805@galois.math.uni-paderborn.de> <200603192258.27950@krak> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Return-path: To: netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200603192258.27950@krak> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org Am Sonntag, den 19. M?rz hub KOVACS Krisztian folgendes in die Tasten: Hi! [...] > However, merging these changes to SVN would still need some more work. > As the number of people working on ct_sync is very close to zero at the > moment, I think that all effort should be concentrated on a single branch > of the code. Because Harald has already put significant effort into > providing support for active-active setups I think that we should try and > get the linux-2.6-multigroup branch working first. Holger Eitzenberger > was also doing some tests using that version and provided multiple fixes > for problems he had found. > So I don't think we should put significant amount of work into updating > the old 2.6.10 branch. Instead, please give the -multigroup branch a try > and provide feedback. I wanted to give it a shot and updated most of the patches to fit to 2.6.17-rc1 (as in the git version of linus kernel from some hours ago). A diff against the svn.netfilter.org version can be found at [42]. I'm experiencing some lack of "knowledge" about the newest *tables -> x_tables chances and want to ask if someone allready has put some effort into updating the patches/code. If someone did, I would love to get/test/use the updates :) If not, I will try to fix this myself these days, but I don't know if I will be able to do so even though git makes things easier. > Of course if you think you have the time to prepare > an easily-committable patch for the linux-2.6 branch of ct_sync I'll be > more than happy to update the SVN repository. I'm just unwilling to spend > a significant amount of time updating that old branch. At [42] there are still working patches for the "plain" ct_sync branch :) (I splitted the patch in -fix and -cleanup) [42] http://vvv.barbarossa.name/files/ct_sync/ Ciao Max -- Follow the white penguin.