Holger Eitzenberger wrote: > Another option would be to just provide the newest code, without a > history at all. Is that what you like more? No, you don't get my point. I don't doubt on the worthiness of your contributions, I'm only stating that you don't do it right. Please, rework your contribution with my suggestions and try again. >>> That patch was provided exactly to solve that issue. >> >> ... because AFAICS if we check for ENOBUFS and then resync against the >> kernel table using GET_CONNTRACK we won't need the sequence cache later, >> will we? > > You will on a busy site. The sole purpose of checking ENOBUFS or > NETLINK_OVERRUN is to check whether you need that logic during normal > operation. So, on a not-so-busy site you won't have those GET_CONNTRACK > requests at all. > > Of course the GET_CONNTRACK requests should be disabled if there wasn't > any overrun for a certain period of time (e. g. one turnaround). > > But still that's only an optimisation. Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here. -- "Los honestos son inadaptados sociales" -- Les Luthiers - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
