On 16/12/15(Wed) 13:30, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:35:41PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > On 16/12/15(Wed) 10:19, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 02:48:49PM +1300, Richard Procter wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, 15 Dec 2015, Mike Belopuhov wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Yet another possibility is to drop 'once' rules as too complex to > > > > > > implement for multiprocessor but I have no idea if this is > > > > > > viable. > > > > > > > > > > It is. And I have said that before with an authority of the > > > > > implementor > > > > > of "once" rules: since we don't have any userland applications that > > > > > would use this yet, we can ditch them for now and possibly devise a > > > > > better approach later. > > > > > > > > > Don't make your lives harder than they have to be! > > > > > > > > I tend to agree! And I can't see a way to reimplement it for a > > > > multithreaded pf without introducing downsides. > > > > Guys, if none of you can come with a valid reason to keep "once" rules > > please kill them. > > > > There's so much work to do to make pf(4) runnable on multiple CPUs in > > parallel that bikescheding/turd-polishing bits that are not used are > > IMHO not the way to go. > > The patch I've sent recently works just fine for Solaris. So ONCE rules are no > issue. I like the idea of once rules as they make life potentially easier for > application proxies.
If "potentially easier" is good enough for you then please move forward :)
