On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:36:44AM +0200, Tobias Klauser wrote: > On 2015-07-30 at 10:55:06 +0200, Vadim Kochan <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 09:09:13AM +0200, Tobias Klauser wrote: > > > On 2015-07-29 at 17:07:29 +0200, Vadim Kochan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > From: Vadim Kochan <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > In the previous version there was no panic if > > > > file does not exist, so lets follow this behaviour. > > > > > > In my opinion the current behavior is fine. These files should exists on > > > any decent system which is needed to run the netsniff-ng tools. > > > > Hi Tobias, > > > > But I got this on network namespace: > > > > $ ip netns exec ns0 netsniff-ng -i veth0 > > > > Really I dont know yet what is the difference if to run this on > > separated net namespace. > > Then just running it with `netsniff-ng -A' to avoid setting of the > socket memory options might be the better solution. > > I would prefer to see if the socket memory value(s) couldn't be set > instead of silently ignoring the issue, as would be the case with your > patch applied. > > If anything we could maybe convert the panic() in > set_system_socket_mem() to a simple printf() and/or already check the > return value of get_system_socket_mem() inside > set_system_socket_memory() > > What do you think?
Warning messages seems better than panic! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "netsniff-ng" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
