On Sat, 2016-08-13 at 22:35 +0200, Florian Westphal wrote: > > Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sat, 2016-08-13 at 20:30 +0200, Florian Westphal wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > 3.16.37-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > > > > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Florian Westphal <fw@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > commit 36472341017529e2b12573093cc0f68719300997 upstream. > > > > > > [..] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The extra overhead is negible, even with absurd cases. > > > > > > Not true, the overhead is huge and increases restore time for > > > large rulesets from mere seconds to minutes, see > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=f4dc77713f8016d2e8a3295e1c9c53a21f296def > > > > So do you think I should add that to this update or defer the netfilter > > changes to the next update? > > Depends on what your focus is for 3.16. > > If your focus is to better not break anything I would just drop > this patch and apply it for the next round with the fix > (f4dc77713f8016d2e8a3295e1c9c53a21f296def) on top once it had more > soak time. I thought there were more that depended on this one, but in fact dropping just this seems to work. So that's what I've done for now. Thanks. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings If at first you don't succeed, you're doing about average.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part