On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 11:14:51AM +0200, Patrick Schaaf wrote: > Hi devel, > Did I overlook something? Making drop_next atomic_t should be a good fix.
no, you didn't. I'm not going to submit a patch for this, since we've never had a single bug report and it is very theoretic [whatever reason has to become true], and we are currently redesigning the conntrack hash anyway.... so I'd expect the new conntrack hash code including the limit-number-of-entries-per-chain code to fix this issue as well :) > best regards > Patrick -- Live long and prosper - Harald Welte / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gnumonks.org/ ============================================================================ GCS/E/IT d- s-: a-- C+++ UL++++$ P+++ L++++$ E--- W- N++ o? K- w--- O- M- V-- PS+ PE-- Y+ PGP++ t++ 5-- !X !R tv-- b+++ DI? !D G+ e* h+ r% y+(*)
