Patrick McHardy wrote: > Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >> Patrick McHardy wrote: >>> Generally, I'd say a better approach is to get rid of the notifier >>> chain (unnecessary overhead for the single user we have), replace it >>> by a function pointer for event delivery and use that as an indication >>> that events should be tracked. >> >> I have a fuzzy morning. I get the idea of replacing the notifier chain >> by a function pointer but I don't get the idea of the indication. > > Something like: > > if (nf_ct_deliver_events == NULL) > don't cache events, try to avoid any other event-related overhead > > with nf_ct_deliver_events being the function pointer. Similar to > the sysctl, that allows to enable/disable hopefully most of the > event stuff at runtime. Thanks, now I see, I was mixing this with the extra atomic operations that nf_conntrack_event_cache() adds in my patch. I'm going to reply your other email which refers to the extra atomic-operations issue. -- "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
