Re: [RFC nf-next-2.6] conntrack: per cpu nf_conntrack_untracked

Changli Gao
2010-06-04T12:10:56Z

On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net> wrote:
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> Obviously, an IPS_UNTRACKED bit would be much easier to implement.
>> Would it be acceptable ?
>
> That also would be fine. However the main idea behind using a nfctinfo
> bit was that we wouldn't need the untracked conntrack anymore at all.
> But I guess a per-cpu untrack conntrack would already be an improvement
> over the current situation.

I think Eric didn't mean ip_conntrack_info but ip_conntrack_status
bit. Since we have had a IPS_TEMPLATE bit, I think another
IPS_UNTRACKED bit is also acceptable.

--
Regards,
Changli Gao(xiaosuo@gmail.com)