On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 01:59:47PM +1300, Andrew Thompson wrote:
> On 24 November 2010 13:36, Jung-uk Kim <j...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 23 November 2010 07:18 pm, Weongyo Jeong wrote:
> >>    - BPF was normally for ethernet frames (most operations were
> >> based on mbuf including the machine filter and there were a lot of
> >> assumptions the input buffer is mbuf type.  For example, handling
> >> BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_ABS).  However the USB packet isn't like mbuf
> >> style that it's just a linear buffer.  So the most important code
> >> or assumption wasn't compatible.
> >
> > BPF can deal with linear buffer just fine.  For example, ng_bpf(4)
> > does it.  Please see sys/netgraph/ng_bpf.c.
> >
> >>    - Just making the patch for BPF code, it looked like a trick or
> >> a hack to me because I couldn't define what BPF should be.
> >
> > If you don't want to touch bpf.c for some reason, netgraph(4) (->
> > ng_bpf) may be an alternate solution for you.
> >
> >>    - I could not define BPF exactly myself that what BPF should
> >> cover. I agreed with that BPF is for ethernet packet filtering but
> >> could not make sure myself that BPF could cover USB packets.
> >
> > BPF is a generic packet filter machine, i.e., bytecode is generic
> > enough for any type of data stream.
> 
> I agree that this is the best way forward, if it can be achieved.

Yes it's best.  I think it could be achieved.  I'll make the patch.

regards,
Weongyo Jeong

_______________________________________________
freebsd-usb@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-usb
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-usb-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to