On 07/08/2016 12:54 PM, Vishwanath Pai wrote:
> On 07/08/2016 12:37 PM, David Laight wrote:
>> If you think some users would still want 32bit limits, then you should
>> (probably) use a _64 suffix for the new functions.
>>
>> David
>
> I am proposing a new revision for hashlimit that supports
On 07/08/2016 12:37 PM, David Laight wrote:
> If you think some users would still want 32bit limits, then you should
> (probably) use a _64 suffix for the new functions.
>
> David
I am proposing a new revision for hashlimit that supports a higher rate
along with a few other changes/fixes (i
From: Vishwanath Pai
> Sent: 08 July 2016 00:34
> I am planning to add a revision 2 for the hashlimit xtables module to
> support higher packets per second rates. This patch renames all the
> functions and variables related to revision 1 by adding _v1 at the end of
> the names.
Sounds backwards.
I
