On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 02:20:36PM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote: L> there are performance reasons to do this way -- grabbing L> the entire packet is expensive because it is done via programmed L> I/O, so the current code only grabs the header, does the L> filtering, and grabs the rest of the packet only if L> needed.
Well, thinking deeply I have to admit that percentage of dropped packets can be high under normal operation. If we are connected to non-swithced network (e.g. coax) percentage of dropped packets is high... But my position didn't change, I absolutely agree with Andre. We can't keep this hack for the sake of very old and rare hardware. L> I'd rather not apply the patch unless you can show that L> the current code leads to incorrect behaviour. I suspect that packets dropped by bridge_in() called from if_ed will not be captured by bpf(4). This is incorrect. System administrators expect bpf(4) to be at the lowest possible layer, thinking "if packet came on wire - tcpdump must show it". -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
