From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [ULOGD RFC 08/30] NFCT: rework Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 10:11:50 +0100 Message-ID: <47A2E256.6080600@trash.net> References: <20080130185847.693274384@kruemel.intranet.astaro.de> <20080130190127.400747893@kruemel.intranet.astaro.de> <47A27481.7080700@netfilter.org> <87r6fx14j1.fsf@kruemel.intranet.astaro.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Holger Eitzenberger Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:41872 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753282AbYBAJL4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:11:56 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87r6fx14j1.fsf@kruemel.intranet.astaro.de> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Holger Eitzenberger wrote: > Pablo Neira Ayuso writes: > >> Well, this NFCT stuff is a big hack. I'm sure that you have solved >> several issues with those patches but sorry, I don't like them at all. >> There's several parts of conntrackd that we could use to rework this eg. >> an implementation of a generic hash table in conntrackd that we can >> reuse and nfnl_recv_msgs looks very similar to nfnl_catch, etc. Also, >> the ENOBUFS handling is still a mess. I'm better keeping back these NFCT >> patches. I'll try to give some spins to it. > > Hi Pablo, > > are you talking about this particular patch or the end result after > applying all of the NFCT patches? > > Also note that IMO this particular patch turned a non-working NFCT > solution into some better-working solution. I just suggest to > comment on the final NFCT code and not on this one. Thanks. I agree, this code has bitrotten for too long, I'm happy about any progress. Any objections should be clearly stated please.