Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 01:57:36 -0700 From: "Aaron D. Gifford" <agifford@infowest.com> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Timeouts on dynamic ipfw rules Message-ID: <20020201085740.A60B12151E@ns1.infowest.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I recently was heard to elocute: >Memory wise, the patches only increase memory use in the dynamic rules (a >single unsigned short), using a union to store the information in the main >ruleset since for keep-state rules the union in question was not in use (or >so I believe - no one has told me otherwise, I can't see a problem, and I >haven't yet heard of any trouble - if there ever was trouble, it would be >easy to move the field out of the union). Oops. s/unsigned short/unsigned long/g; Scratch that "unsigned short" and make it an "unsigned long" (or "u_int32_t") instead in the above paragraph. Aaron out. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020201085740.A60B12151E>