From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: nf_conntrack [was Re: [PATCH 1/4] RFC: fast string matching infrastrure for netfilter] Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:52:18 +0100 Message-ID: <41E806D2.6040108@trash.net> References: <41E1AECD.6020209@eurodev.net> <41E1B9F1.7010106@trash.net> <41E2E631.3060102@trash.net> <20050110212807.GZ18568@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> <41E73258.7030002@trash.net> <1105686102.7311.101.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Harald Welte , Netfilter Development Mailinglist , Pablo Neira , Jozsef Kadlecsik Return-path: To: Rusty Russell In-Reply-To: <1105686102.7311.101.camel@localhost.localdomain> 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 Rusty Russell wrote: >It was IRC, and for IPv6 I agree with Harald that it's probably not the >right mechanism. I prefer a simple discriminated union and two slab >caches (IPv4 and IPv6), which is hardcoded, but still fairly easy to >read. > > Sounds good. >Does that mean I should *not* send the expectation and NAT patches to >DaveM now? (Posted before the ct_extend patches): > No, I just meant we need to stop at some point some so nf_conntrack has a chance of beeing resynced. Regards Patrick