Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:41:44 +0100 From: piso@FreeBSD.org To: Vadim Goncharov <vadim_nuclight@mail.ru> Cc: freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [patch] ipfw_nat as a kld module Message-ID: <20080229154144.GA81243@tin.it> In-Reply-To: <slrnfsg64q.223r.vadim_nuclight@hostel.avtf.net> References: <20080228151134.GA73358@tin.it> <slrnfsf5iv.17n8.vadim_nuclight@hostel.avtf.net> <20080229095150.GA76592@tin.it> <slrnfsg64q.223r.vadim_nuclight@hostel.avtf.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 02:37:14PM +0000, Vadim Goncharov wrote: > >> * struct ip_fw_chain moved to .h and no longer static, is this good? > >> I suggest to move into it's own static chain in module, see next > > the symbol is used outside it's originating file > > Is it needed if LIST_HEAD will be in its own module? every modification/access to layer3_chain lock is arbitrated via its own rwlock(), thus to answer your question, yes, there are places where we would need access to layer3_chain > > that's something i thought about, but i didn't see any tangible improvement > > to this modification, cause part of ipfw_nat would still be called from > > ipfw2.c (see ipfw_ctl). > > This could be fixed, too, as is done with dummynet, which is also configured > via ipfw(8). As it is HEAD, ABI can be broken and this will not be done via > ipfw_ctl(). yes, but does it buy us anything? moreover, we would loose the ability to merge the work back to 7.x. bye, P.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080229154144.GA81243>