nf_conntrack [was Re: [PATCH 1/4] RFC: fast string matching infrastrure for netfilter]

[Patrick McHardy]

Rusty Russell wrote:

>It was IRC, and for IPv6 I agree with Harald that it's probably not the
>right mechanism.  I prefer a simple discriminated union and two slab
>caches (IPv4 and IPv6), which is hardcoded, but still fairly easy to
>read.
>  
>
Sounds good.

>Does that mean I should *not* send the expectation and NAT patches to
>DaveM now?  (Posted before the ct_extend patches):
>
No, I just meant we need to stop at some point some so nf_conntrack has a
chance of beeing resynced.

Regards
Patrick