David S. Miller wrote:
>
> > Can't they do that already? For example,
>
> The existing hook is only useful for the bridging,
> the proposed new hook was generic and useful for other
> applications.
Here's what I see in the current code:
if (skb->dev->br_port && br_handle_frame_hook) {
... call the hook ...
}
I don't see anything that guarantees that br_port and br_handle_frame_hook
actually point to the things their names suggest (as I tried to show in my
previous example). What have I missed? How does the current code enforce
that it is used for bridging only? If you would kindly point out which
safeguards my patch eliminates, I would be happy to put them back in. (My
application is bridge-like, and not a "proprietary TCP stack", so it would
not suffer from such restrictions.)
Thanks,
--
Dan Eble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _____ .
| _ |/|
Applied Innovation Inc. | |_| | |
http://www.aiinet.com/ |__/|_|_|
_______________________________________________
Bridge mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/mailman/listinfo/bridge
