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