Hi Max Laier! On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 00:05:36 +0100; Max Laier wrote about 'Review please: pfil FIRST/LAST':
> attached is a small diff to allow pfil(9) consumers to force a sticky=20 > position on the head/tail of the processing queue. This can be used to=20 > do traffic conditioning kind of tasks w/o disturbing the other filters. =20 > I will need this to implement carp(4) ip based load balancing. While=20 > here I also removed a few paragraphs in BUGS which are no longer true=20 > (since we are using rmlocks for pfil(9)). > I'd appreciate review of the logic in pfil_list_add - just to make sure I=20 > didn't botch it. Thanks. Could it be done a way which will allow user a simple configuration of filter plly ordering? E.g. to specify that order must alway be "ipfw, then pf". -- WBR, Vadim Goncharov. ICQ#166852181 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [Moderator of RU.ANTI-ECOLOGY][FreeBSD][http://antigreen.org][LJ:/nuclight] _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
