Re: 2.6.20 support for other 'features'

[Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>]

Mohammad Mohsenzadeh wrote:
> On 4/11/07, Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net> wrote:
> 
>> And how would it do that for two external modules, that don't know
>> how large the last part is?
>>
> 
> That's absolutely correct. How about having only one slab cache and a
> dynamic list of features. Whenever a new feature is registered or an
> old one is removed, we can reallocate slab cache with a new size. I'm
> not sure if that would work for sure, just throwing some ideas out
> there. Something like
> 
> [...]
> One problem that I can see with this is that we have flush all our
> conntracks so we can call     kmem_cache_destroy and then recreate the
> slab with new size. Would this be alright since it would only happen
> on registering and unregistering features since it doesn't happen
> often.


No, I don't like that, besides a single slab cache would force us to
waste space by always allocating the maximum size even if not needed
for a specific conntrack (helpers for example are rare). Rusty had a
better idea, search the archives for ct_extend.