Hi Bertrand, On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 12:25:11AM +0000, Bertrand Jacquin wrote: > > I'm not against merging this patchset as-is, but at least I'd like > > to be sure that we find an elegant long-term solution to this. If > > it's not too hard to implement we could even implement it later and > > backport it as a resource usage fix. > > > > What do you think ? > > I personally have no urgency in getting this merged, so if your prefer to > get the right thing done from day one, I really don't mind delay this > feature. I understand your proposal, I need to dive deep in this since I > believe the change will be pretty invasive, this would take quite some > time. Maybe we can #ifdef this feature until we have a proper solution > so at least some people might be able to use it while enhancement of > addresses structure can happens. Or more easily I may be able to replace > the struct proxy_addr with a pointer to a struct proxy_addr that would > be initialized only of one of the proxy protocol is in use.
Well in this case I'd prefer that we postpone it after the release and that we try to improve the overall situation with these huge addresses. We'll probably have the same requirement when implementing server-side HTTP/2 and we probably don't want to multiply the sockaddr_storage in each intermediary step. Thus there will be a good motivation for seeking how to improve this. I'll pick your fixes from the patchset though ;-) Thanks! Willy
