Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > If they appear in a batch tehy will be ignored, if the batch consists of > > such non-modifying ops only then nf_tables_commit() returns early > > because the transaction list is empty (nothing to do/change). > > Ok, one little inconvenient question: what about GETOBJ_RESET? That > looks like a hybrid that modifies kernel table counters and reports > synchronously. That could be a special case call in > nf_tables_dump_obj() and nf_tables_getobj(). Will that cause a storm > per commit? No, since they can't be part of a commit (they don't implement the 'call_batch' function). I'm not sure GETOBJ_RESET should be reported in the first place: RESET only affects expr internal state, and that state changes all the time anyway in response to network traffic.
