On 15.06.16 17:49, Ian Smith wrote: > Ok, but you're regularly referring to multiple state _tables_, but I > think that what is proposed is one table with name added to protocol, > addresses and ports as a parameter rather than as distinct tables? > > Is that right, Andrey? As I said, I'm not looking at the code now.
Internally it is implemented as one unsigned integer in addition to
addresses and ports in flow structure. So, in general, there is still
one hash table.
> > I think flowname is a bad name.. it's a state table name.
>
> I don't think so. That was just a suggestion in place of generic 'name'
> but the more I read your following message, which I'll respond to next,
> the more I think you've made a good case for 'flowname', which Andrey
> has used in latest review in ipfw(8). Onwards ..
I updated the patch in
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D6674
Also I reworked Lev's patch on top of my patch and made it simpler:
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1776#143557
--
WBR, Andrey V. Elsukov
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
