From c30dbff63dde9db2a8b5fd0b24683ee63e934d22 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Anoop Saldanha <poonaatsoc@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 22:56:01 +0530
Subject: [PATCH] update flow pruning - v4

---
 src/flow.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/src/flow.c b/src/flow.c
index a8ecc9e174..d3e54fbb08 100644
--- a/src/flow.c
+++ b/src/flow.c
@@ -639,7 +639,23 @@ static int FlowPrune(ThreadVars *tv, FlowQueue *q, struct timeval *ts)
     }
 
     if (FlowForceReassemblyForFlowV2(tv, f) == 1) {
-        return cnt;
+        int mr = SCMutexTrylock(&q->mutex_q);
+        if (mr != 0) {
+            SCLogDebug("trylock failed");
+            if (mr == EBUSY)
+                SCLogDebug("was locked");
+            if (mr == EINVAL)
+                SCLogDebug("bad mutex value");
+            return cnt;
+        }
+        /* this ain't perfect.  There is no guaranted that both f and qnext_f
+         * are in q.  For all we know they might both be transferred to some
+         * other queue in the same order.  We need to fix this. */
+        if (f->lnext == qnext_f)
+            f = qnext_f;
+        else
+            f = q->top;
+        goto FlowPrune_Prune_Next;
     }
 
     /* this should not be possible */