From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] netfilter: conntrack: optional reliable conntrack event delivery Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:43:23 +0200 Message-ID: <4A2FAA6B.3080102@netfilter.org> References: <20090604110307.6702.10147.stgit@Decadence> <20090604110841.6702.76228.stgit@Decadence> <4A292DB7.4000000@trash.net> <4A2EE3D2.1090007@netfilter.org> <4A2EE5A3.2000502@trash.net> <4A2EE610.9020207@trash.net> <4A2EE907.70609@netfilter.org> <4A2F09D9.7090507@gmail.com> <4A2F830C.9020403@trash.net> <4A2F8CC7.2010708@netfilter.org> <4A2F9120.9010904@trash.net> <4A2F9289.6000502@trash.net> <4A2F9BB8.8020701@trash.net> <4A2FA56D.4090105@netfilter.org> <4A2FA6A9.2090709@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Eric Dumazet , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: Received: from mail.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:50262 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755373AbZFJMnb (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:43:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4A2FA6A9.2090709@trash.net> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Patrick McHardy wrote: > Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >> wrt. the event cache, the missed field can save us from doing the >> locking in every event caching at the cost of consuming a bit more of >> memory. I think this is more conservative but safer than my approach (no >> potential defering by calling cmpxchg forever, even if it's unlikely). >> Still, we would need to take the spin lock for the event delivery. Let >> me know what you think. > > Would we really have to? The events are incremental anyways, so > it shouldn't matter if we very rarely deliver an event twice. No problem. I'll add a comment to tell about this, we can re-visit this issue later if it becomes a problem. Please, let me know once you are done with your patch to rebase mine ;). -- "Los honestos son inadaptados sociales" -- Les Luthiers