On Thu, 2016-03-24 at 07:12 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 10:10:06PM -0700, Tolga Ceylan wrote:
> > I apologize for not properly following up on this. I had the
> > impression that we did not want to merge my original patch and then I
> > also noticed that it fails to keep the hash consistent. Recently, I
> > read the follow ups on it as well as Willy's patch/proposals.
> > Is there any update on Willy's SO_REUSEPORT patch? IMHO, it solves the
> > problem and it is simpler than adding new sock option.
> no, Craig's changes were merged, and I haven't checked yet if my patch
> needs to be rebased or still applies. Feel free to check it and resubmit
> if you have time.
No need for a patch AFAIK.
BPF solution is generic enough.
All user space needs to do is to update the BPF filter so that the
listener needing to be dismantled does not receive any new packet.