Changli Gao wrote: > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Eric Dumazet wrote: >>> Obviously, an IPS_UNTRACKED bit would be much easier to implement. >>> Would it be acceptable ? >> That also would be fine. However the main idea behind using a nfctinfo >> bit was that we wouldn't need the untracked conntrack anymore at all. >> But I guess a per-cpu untrack conntrack would already be an improvement >> over the current situation. > > I think Eric didn't mean ip_conntrack_info but ip_conntrack_status > bit. Since we have had a IPS_TEMPLATE bit, I think another > IPS_UNTRACKED bit is also acceptable. Yes, of course. But using one of these bits implies that we'd still have the untracked conntrack. -- 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
