svn commit: r300854 - in head/sys: netinet netinet6

[K. Macy]

On Friday, May 27, 2016, Bjoern A. Zeeb <bzeeb-lists at lists.zabbadoz.net>
wrote:

>
> > On 28 May 2016, at 00:02 , Gleb Smirnoff <glebius at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 02:27:45PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > A> Hm, doesnt this make sense to do as part of RO_RTFREE?
> >
> > I agree that it looks messy, but for now we just need to fix instapanic.
> >
> > I will either return to this, or may be melifaro's new routing will
> > outperform FLOWTABLE and we can delete it.
>
> This statement makes no sense to me at this point anymore.
> For local connections you have cached routes;  no lookup will be faster.
>
> For forwarding flowtable should not be used anyway.
>
>

Flowtable does, or at least did (I don't know how much the code has been
handicapped in the meantime), stateful handling of flows. Neither inpcb
caching nor melifaro's routing improvements apply. Perhaps obsolete as the
band aid it was being used for.


What you mean is that with L2 caching in the inPCB, flowtable will become
> obsolete?
>
> /bz
> _______________________________________________
> svn-src-head at freebsd.org <javascript:;> mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscribe at freebsd.org
> <javascript:;>"
>