From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH] priv_data 0/2 Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 01:25:19 +0200 Message-ID: <44C010DF.1060604@trash.net> References: <200606261641.47294.max@nucleus.it> <44A962DF.3080406@trash.net> <200607032305.06581.max@nucleus.it> <44A9A103.8090705@anduras.de> <44A9B458.1030106@trash.net> <20060720223846.GV7194@kriss.csbnet.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org Return-path: To: Joakim Axelsson In-Reply-To: <20060720223846.GV7194@kriss.csbnet.se> 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 Joakim Axelsson wrote: > 2006-07-04 02:20:40+0200, Patrick McHardy -> > >>Sven Anders wrote: >> >>>If this is merged, I would like to see a negated limit... >>>I need some advice to preserve compatibility here. >> >>Once this is merged we can convert matches and targets to keep their >>private state outside of the structure shared with userspace and can >>start reusing the fields, since they are ignored by userspace anyway. >>I'm not sure, but I think currently userspace initializes them to 0, >>which should make this easy. >> > > > I wonder where all this priv_data changes ended? We missed the 2.6.18 merge window and I'm currently busy with a few other things, so I delayed it a bit. It will go in 2.6.19, I'll post the patches once I've merged them in my 2.6.19 tree. > I have a few modules (that > I havn't submited, because i've been way to lazy :-/) that will benefit from > this. Among those a new limiter matcher simply called "lim". This match will > solve Sven Anders problem with negating match. It's also much more aqurate > and using a better limiter algoritm. Including being able to limit on packet > size etc etc. It has been working stable in large scale routers (several > 100Mbit/s) for a year now I think. Please just post what you've got, I'd be interested in seeing why you chose to introduce a new match instead of enhancing the existing limit match.