Subject: Re: problem with promiscous mode and vlans
To: Jason Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Manuel Bouyer <email@example.com>
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.
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. Manuel.Bouyer@lip6.fr
NetBSD: 24 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference