From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso Subject: Re: [PATCH] ctnetlink: optional packet drop to make event delivery reliable Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:04:26 +0100 Message-ID: <49C8E86A.6060707@netfilter.org> References: <20090324110706.13981.24167.stgit@Decadence> <49C8DE75.1050109@trash.net> <49C8E312.5060005@netfilter.org> <49C8E514.2010205@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: Received: from mail.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:57518 "EHLO us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754796AbZCXOEh (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:04:37 -0400 In-Reply-To: <49C8E514.2010205@trash.net> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Patrick McHardy wrote: > But it seems rather pointless to add it in this state, it doesn't > increase reliability one bit. Additionally reversing the order of > state transitions and event delivery seems like a highly intrusive > change since event delivery obviously already needs to know the > new state, meaning we'd need to record all state changes, then > deliver the event, then "commit" them. So I'd like to see what > we're engaging in before merging this half finished patch. I see, I'm going to send you a new patch so we can discuss on something in particular. -- "Los honestos son inadaptados sociales" -- Les Luthiers