On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 02:27:28PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On 03/02/11 13:00, Helmut Grohne wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 01:54:27PM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote: > >> libnetfilter-log src/libnetfilter_log.c: > >> | /** > >> | * nflog_unbind_pf - unbind nflog handler from a protocol family > >> | * \param h Netfilter log handle obtained via call to nflog_open() > >> | * \param pf protocol family to unbind family from > >> | * > >> | * Unbinds the given nflog handle from processing packets belonging > >> | * to the given protocol family. > >> | */ > > > > This comment is indeed very misleading. > > Let's fix it then :-) ... > Please, would you send me a patch so others can benefit for this > conclusion in the official documentation? I'd appreciate it. I just touched the surface of what is going on here. It would certainly be better if someone with more oversight would try to fill in this gap. > There is other things that you can do to avoid ENOBUFS, it is documented > in libnetfilter_queue but it also applies to libnetfilter_log: > > http://www.netfilter.org/projects/libnetfilter_queue/doxygen/ > > See performance, the last two items do not apply to libnetfilter_log. > Another patch for this would be great. Thanks for the information. Again I'd need more understanding of the matter before I can create a patch. (For instance I fail to see why suppressing ENOBUFS would not help the performane.) The performance issues on my project seem to have solved themselves in the mean time. Helmut -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
