-------- In message <cantn4cp7ayth-gg0wup2mqdfntd_uk0szbcovm6gaphvmoi...@mail.gmail.com> , Martin Blix Grydeland writes:
>I was looking at this patch, and I believe there is a problem with regard >to how you implemented this. > >I believe the loop in ban_lurker() around successful ban_lurker_work calls >when the ban_lurker is enabled, has the potential of running for much >longer than intended. So long as there is a new ban added at an interval >shorter than 2*ban_lurker_sleep, this loop will continue running, and then >no tail bans will ever be dropped. I have added a tail-trimming operation for every 10 successfull iterations of the ban-lurker. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [email protected] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
