From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Massimiliano Hofer Subject: Re: condition for 2.6.16 Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:46:39 +0200 Message-ID: <200604281246.40488.max@nucleus.it> References: <200604201919.19246.max@nucleus.it> <200604231547.29009.simonl@parknet.dk> <4451C06D.8000108@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org Return-path: To: Patrick McHardy In-Reply-To: <4451C06D.8000108@trash.net> Content-Disposition: inline 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 On Friday 28 April 2006 9:12 am, Patrick McHardy wrote: > I'm not really buying that argument, this can all also be done in > userspace. But a lot of people seem to consider it useful, so I might > reconsider if someone cleans it up so it at least doesn't need to walk > the list of conditions for every packet it matches .. but no promises. I'll set to work on it. I'll need to change the userspace interface, though. The only O(1) way to do it is to store a pointer (or any other id) in the rule itself. I didn't do it in the previous version because I though this was really ugly. I can't find any other match doing a similar thing. Anyway I can do it. On the other hand I can make it a guaranteed O(log n) or average O(1) without meddling the rule descriptor and with compatible userspace. What do you prefer? -- Saluti, Massimiliano Hofer Nucleus