On Monday 17 March 2008 11:29:15 Vadim Goncharov wrote: > 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 position on the head/tail of the processing queue. This > > can be used to do traffic conditioning kind of tasks w/o > > disturbing the other filters. I will need this to implement > > carp(4) ip based load balancing. While here I also removed a few > > paragraphs in BUGS which are no longer true (since we are using > > rmlocks for pfil(9)). > > > > I'd appreciate review of the logic in pfil_list_add - just to make > > sure I 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".
This is a separate issue. I had patches once to specify hook order via sysctl and will probably revisit this as I like the idea. For now, though, this is not what I'm interested in. -- /"\ Best regards, | [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
