Subject: Re: problem with promiscous mode and vlans
To: Jason Thorpe <>
From: Manuel Bouyer <>
List: tech-net
Date: 03/20/2003 15:48:01
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 06:25:48PM -0700, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> I actually have a local patch which bumps the m_flags field to an int, 
> because I needed to make some custom changes to the socket code, which 
> required a few extra mbuf flags.
> I'll merge in the bits that widen the field (and shuffle the mbuf 
> header accordingly) and ride the kernel version bump resulting from the 
> new PID allocation code.

Cool, thanks.

But what do you think about M_PROMISC ? Should it be a plain m_flag, or
is uing a M_LINK for it OK ?
I think it's OK, after all M_PROMISC is constrained to if_ethersubr.c ...

Manuel Bouyer, LIP6, Universite Paris VI. 
     NetBSD: 24 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference