On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 09:50:52AM +0100, Balazs Scheidler wrote:
> > - int32_t offset_before, offset_after;
> > + int16_t offset_before, offset_after;
>
> Am I missing something or is it only 4 bytes?
I knew someone would ask that question ;)
we have that structure as part of an IP_CT_DIR_
On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 00:22 +0100, Harald Welte wrote:
> ---
> commit 94d3d40c84672b74e59ea5252f61602610e1513e
> tree 63e5ae5174af9f982be6d8d1bbe11e750e4ace32
> parent e3c7a1f99300fbd6de35a40fcd9c4dc1b0fbfee2
> author Harald Welte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:03:45 +0100
> committer Har
From: Harald Welte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:22:09 +0100
> [NETFILTER] NAT sequence adjustment: Save eight bytes per conntrack
>
> This patch reduces the size of 'struct ip_conntrack' on systems with NAT
> by eight bytes. The sequence number
Hi Dave!
Please apply this humble little step towards ip_conntrack shrinking,
thanks!
[NETFILTER] NAT sequence adjustment: Save eight bytes per conntrack
This patch reduces the size of 'struct ip_conntrack' on systems with NAT
by eight bytes. The sequence number delta values can
