On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:48:49PM +0200, Hrvoje Popovski wrote: > On 9.6.2017. 14:55, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote: > > Hello, > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 01:11:01PM +0200, Alexander Bluhm wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 10:55:46AM +0200, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote: > >>> would it make sense to commit a poor man's solution below, before > >>> pfsync(4) > >>> will get to shape? The idea is to grab PF_LOCK, just before we pass the > >>> data > >>> to PF for further processing. > >> Whatever helps to make progress with pf is fine. We should not > >> delay unlocking pf until someone steps in and refactors pfsync. > >> > >> OK bluhm@ > >> > > I still would like to ask Hrvoje to give it a try first. I believe the fix > > should work, but I could not try it as I don't have working pfsync set up > > available for testing. > > > > thanks and > > regards > > sasha > > > > > Hi all, > > with this diff i don't see any traces as before. >
thanks a lot for quick testing. regards sasha
