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 -- 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
