Re: [PATCH] Introducing the Change API

[Pablo Neira <pablo@eurodev.net>]

Hi,

Harald Welte wrote:

>On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 09:23:53PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I think that depends on what we want to do with ip_conntrack once
>>nf_conntrack is merged. Since I really don't feel like keeping
>>three codebases in sync (ip_conntrack 2.4 + 2.6 and nf_conntrack),
>>I would prefer to remove it. If we do this, it doesn't make much
>>sense to add further features to it. But I'm not sure what Harald's
>>and Krisztian's plans are for ct_sync, so they might disagree with me.
>>    
>>
>
>I think we should move to nf_conntrack ASAP.  All new
>code/features/API's should be developed on top of nf_conntrack.  We
>really should put ip_conntrack into a maintainance-only mode once
>nf_conntrack becomes mainline.
>

I don't mind about porting both patches to nf_conntrack, as soon as it 
is pushed forward.

>Actually I only want to do some nf_conntrack vs. ip_conntrack
>benchmarking, which I never got aroun doing up to now :(  With a little
>luck, I can do this over the weekend.  If the results are acceptable,
>nf_conntrack will be submitted maybe as soon as 2.6.11. 
>

ok, looking forward seeing the result of your benchmark.

>nfnetlink-ctnetlink in it's existing form will not be submitted to
>mainline.  I'm workin on a new (ctnetlink2) patch, that is
>template-based and to a certain degree arch/alignment/endian
>independent.
>

I'm willing to contribute to ctnetlink, actually I wrote the event and 
change API patches thinking about contibuting to ctnetlink and ct_sync. 
Please, consider sending me such patch as soon as it gets some kind of 
shape.

>   If this ctnetlink2 will be submitted upstream, it will at
>least support nf_conntrack, maybe also ip_conntrack - but not the other
>way around.
>  
>

Ok, thanks Harald, this clarifies which are the plans for conntrack 
stuff in future.

--
Pablo