Hi Dishko,
> > another reason I remember why we chose the iptaccount-program over procfs
> > was
> > accuracy when reading: the program can do an atomic read and reset
> > operation.
> > So there are no packets lost or counted twice when reading.
> U can provide 2 nodes in procfs: counters and counters_flush, so the reader
> of the counters can decide does he need reset or not.
Yeah, we could do it like that. But I'm not sure if anyone expects that
_reading_ from a file in procfs actually changes something. I don't think it
would be a good interface because it does something unexpected. Or think of
someone running a grep through /proc for some reason...
> also i have reworked iptaccount program to produce
> better format for me (plus i have removed all unrelated print ops like
> version, num of entrys, table name ...).
how does your output look like now? I'm open to improving the output.
> Btw, indeed, iptables 1.4.4 have very big difference in support tool
> function names, so you have to change some calls, i can provide a diff if
> you need.
a diff would be very much welcome.
Kind regards,
Gerd
--
ipt_ACCOUNT - see http://www.intra2net.com/en/developer/ipt_ACCOUNT for details.
To unsubscribe send a mail to ipt_ACCOUNT+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
