From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [ULOGD RFC 03/30] Replace timer code by working version Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 10:51:16 +0100 Message-ID: <47A2EB94.2010502@trash.net> References: <20080130185847.693274384@kruemel.intranet.astaro.de> <20080130190126.735398130@kruemel.intranet.astaro.de> <47A2953E.2040600@netfilter.org> <87abmlay96.fsf@kruemel.eitzenberger.org> <47A2E59E.5070209@trash.net> <87hcgtxb91.fsf@kruemel.eitzenberger.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso , heitzenberger@astaro.com, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Holger Eitzenberger Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:42777 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758077AbYBAJv0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:51:26 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87hcgtxb91.fsf@kruemel.eitzenberger.org> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Holger Eitzenberger wrote: > Patrick McHardy writes: > >>> The inititial timer code was incomplete and IMO too complicated for what >>> it did. AFAIRK at the time I started hacking on that there wasn't even >>> a single user of that API. >>> This patch turns the timers into simple and more importantly working >>> timers which with 1-sec resolution. They might easily be adjusted or >>> improved later on. > >> Agreed, from what I remeber about ulogd2 and our discussions there >> doesn't seem to be any need for higher precision. I'll look into >> the details later. > > Yes, there currently is no need for higher-precision timers in ulogd. > Looking at the code I think that Haralds intention was to have those > timers because IPFIX supports (at least principially) higher-precision > timerstamps. IMO ideally there should be added a config switch for > that. > > My next round of patches will clean up the existing code base further, > with focus on the ulogd core. Thanks! I'll wait whether Pablo has further objections, but so far I don't see any show-stoppers that wouldn't be worth the improvements.