Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:05:39 -0700 (PDT) | Subject | Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v3) | From | David Miller <> |
| |
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com> Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:01:11 -0700
> The counters are the bigger problem, otherwise we could just free table > info via rcu. Do we really have to support: replace where the counter > values coming out to user space are always exactly accurate, or is it > allowed to replace a rule and maybe lose some counter ticks (worst case > NCPU-1).
I say this case doesn't matter until someone can prove that it's any different from the IPTABLES replace operation system call executing a few microseconds earlier or later.
There really is no difference, and we're making complexity out of nothing just to ensure something which isn't actually guarenteed right now.
| |