From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 17 10:29:26 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61FF1106564A for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:29:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-hackers@m.gmane.org) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DDA08FC14 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:29:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-hackers@m.gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JbCap-0006fe-FN for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:29:23 +0000 Received: from 195.208.174.178 ([195.208.174.178]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:29:23 +0000 Received: from vadim_nuclight by 195.208.174.178 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:29:23 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org From: Vadim Goncharov Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:29:15 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Nuclear Lightning @ Tomsk, TPU AVTF Hostel Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <200803160005.45827.max@love2party.net> X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.208.174.178 X-Comment-To: Max Laier User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (FreeBSD) Sender: news Subject: Re: Review please: pfil FIRST/LAST X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: vadim_nuclight@mail.ru List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:29:26 -0000 Hi Max Laier! On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 00:05:36 +0100; Max Laier wrote about 'Review please: pfil FIRST/LAST': > attached is a small diff to allow pfil(9) consumers to force a sticky=20 > position on the head/tail of the processing queue. This can be used to=20 > do traffic conditioning kind of tasks w/o disturbing the other filters. =20 > I will need this to implement carp(4) ip based load balancing. While=20 > here I also removed a few paragraphs in BUGS which are no longer true=20 > (since we are using rmlocks for pfil(9)). > I'd appreciate review of the logic in pfil_list_add - just to make sure I=20 > didn't botch it. Thanks. Could it be done a way which will allow user a simple configuration of filter plly ordering? E.g. to specify that order must alway be "ipfw, then pf". -- WBR, Vadim Goncharov. ICQ#166852181 mailto:vadim_nuclight@mail.ru [Moderator of RU.ANTI-ECOLOGY][FreeBSD][http://antigreen.org][LJ:/nuclight]