Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 12:40:29 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 282984] [PATCH] pfctl: add -T `makezero` to touch pfras_tzero _only_ for non-zero entries Message-ID: <bug-282984-227-rLSnIFaOLV@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-282984-227@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-282984-227@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D282984 --- Comment #2 from Leonid Evdokimov <leon+freebsd@darkk.net.ru> --- (In reply to Kristof Provost from comment #1) I also dislike the name, but I failed to come up with a better one. I'd appreciate help here. "touch" is a bad one as it actually changes counters. "clear" sounds like an option, but might be confused with "flush", so IMO i= t's even worse than "makezero". "mark" might come from mark-n-sweep gc, but it's confusing in this context. "rearm" comes with watchdog/timer semantics that is kinda close, but still = not 100% applicable. "reset" is almost the winner, but TCP has already taken the word for RST. I would say "reset" is my 2nd preferred option after "makezero". So I'm kinda out of reasonable options. > come with some performance penalty It's probably my mistake made under assumption that counter-aware tables ha= ve different memory layout and handling. I was unaware of pfr_get_astats() saying that > It was possible to have a table without per-entry counters. Now they are= =20 > always allocated, we just discard data when reading it if table is not=20 > configured to have counters. ACK for tests & commit message. Will do. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-282984-227-rLSnIFaOLV>