IPFW update frequency

[Luigi Rizzo]

On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 11:47:12AM +0100, Max Laier wrote:
> On Saturday 31 March 2007 11:27, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
...
> See above, ipfw is working in parallel already.  In addition to that, 
> using a ref-count would be worse!  Instead of two atomic operations you'd 
> then have to pay for four: lock ref unlock work lock unref unlock  All of 
> which can contentend each other.  This will most likely cause more 

not sure what you have in mind, but the ref() and unref() are
already atomic ops.

> serialization than we currently have.  Again, please don't rush any 
> hacks!

relax, nobody is rushing, we are in discussion mode!

cheers
luigi