do I only have to #undef AF_NETLINK? or is there others...
I did a quick test with my solution and I found no buffered packets were getting
through...
Any ideas?
Brett
Gyepi SAM wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 12:40:42PM +0800, Brett Wallace wrote:
> > I am running Redhat 5.1 with kernel 2.0.36.
> >
> > Whilst compiling diald, I find that the proxy_tap code trying to be
> > compiled in. The reason for this is that the AF_NETLINK is defined in
> > /usr/include/socketbits.h. The definition is the same as the one in the
> > file /usr/include/bits/socket.h under Redhat 6.0 with kernel 2.2.5-15.
> >
> > Thus is there another #define apart from AF_NETLINK that can be used to
> > determine if the proxy_tap code should be compiled, like HAVE_AF_NETLINK
> > ?
> >
> > Also where do I find a list of these #defines? Eg. HAVE_AF_PACKET and
> > where are they defined?
> >
> > Or am I doing something wrong??
>
> No, you not doing anything wrong. The source assumes that you are using
> a kernel that supports the correct interfaces. #undef them at the end
> of diald.h This is quickly becoming a FAQ.
>
> --
> Gyepi Sam --+-- Designer/Programmer --+-- Network/System Administrator
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] --+-- http://www.praxis-sw.com/gyepi
>
> Who does not trust enough will not be trusted. -- Lao Tsu
--
Brett Wallace ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
_--_|\ RAMA Technologies Pty. Ltd.
/ \ 28 Walters Dve, Osborne Park WA 6103, Australia
\_.--._/ Tel: +61 8 9445 7999 Fax: +61 8 9445 7666
v http://www.rama.com.au
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-diald" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
