Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Patrick McHardy wrote:
Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Patrick McHardy wrote:
Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
Mhh good point :) I was thinking of calling it from the raw table,
but of course we don't have a conntrack at that point. So the
information would have to be propagated from the raw table somehow.
Maybe something like the untracked conntrack? IIRC someone posted
a patch for something similar (propagation of parameters to helpers)
some time ago.
OK, I'll look at this. Can we push the current version (plus
discussed changes) now and tag if for 2.6.27 and try to solve above
problem later (2.6.28)?
I would prefer to see a final solution before pushing
it upstream. Having it only implemented half-way forces
an additional allocation on everyone (even those not
even compiling the feature in now) for now gain.
Not really as my patch makes possible do disable accounting, I even
initially proposed to disable it by default. If accounting is
disabled then there is no additional allocation.
Yes, but then I'll get a bunch of bug reports :) And its
unlikely that most people will notice or touch this value.
Hm, I thought we agreed for now to set a default value using a state of
CONFIG_NF_CT_ACCT, so there should be no difference nor bug reports.
So, my solution is somehow final except the target that I'll promise to
work later on. ;) Please also note that noticing and touching a value is
not a big problem comparing to getting a new iptables version with for
example "-j ACCT" target and adding a new call to firewall scripts.
As I said, I'm not opposed to a default value. How about
you send a new patch on top of the nf-next-2.6.git tree
and we'll continue the discussion based on that? :)
--
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
