Please take a look at this patch. It implement 1 more flag to if_flags
and ofcourse it increases size of this flag field by using if_ipending
which is unused.
There is no much point in this patch, because it will increase size of
struct ifreq, which means that no ioctl's from older apps
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
Please take a look at this patch. It implement 1 more flag to if_flags
and ofcourse it increases size of this flag field by using if_ipending
which is unused.
There is no much point in this patch, because it will increase size of
struct
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
When implementing ability to switch interface into promisc mode using
ifconfig(8) I've stumbled into the problem with already exhausted
space in the `short if_flags' field in the ifnet structure. I need to
allocate one new flag, while we
There is no much point in this patch, because it will increase size of
struct ifreq, which means that no ioctl's from older apps will be accepted
anyway. Therefore, there is no difference between those two, while my
approach is obviously cleaner.
It does not increase size of struct
Maxim Sobolev wrote:
There is no much point in this patch, because it will increase size of
struct ifreq, which means that no ioctl's from older apps will be accepted
anyway. Therefore, there is no difference between those two, while my
approach is obviously cleaner.
It does
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
When implementing ability to switch interface into promisc mode using
ifconfig(8) I've stumbled into the problem with already exhausted
space in the `short if_flags' field in the ifnet structure.
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
MSBTW, I've just realised that we can easily avoid breaking application
MSABI by using currently unused ifr_ifru.ifru_flags[2] (aka. ifr_prevflags)
MSfor storing another 16 flags. What do people think?
The ifr_prevflags may be used by snmp daemons to
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
MSBTW, I've just realised that we can easily avoid breaking application
MSABI by using currently unused ifr_ifru.ifru_flags[2] (aka. ifr_prevflags)
MSfor storing another 16 flags. What do people think?
The ifr_prevflags may be used by snmp
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
MS
MS On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
MS
MS MSBTW, I've just realised that we can easily avoid breaking application
MS MSABI by using currently unused ifr_ifru.ifru_flags[2] (aka. ifr_prevflags)
MS MSfor storing another 16 flags. What do people
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
MS
MS On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
MS
MS MSBTW, I've just realised that we can easily avoid breaking application
MS MSABI by using currently unused ifr_ifru.ifru_flags[2] (aka. ifr_prevflags)
MS MSfor storing another 16 flags. What
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
MS
MS On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
MS
MS MS
MS MS On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
MS MS
MS MS MSBTW, I've just realised that we can easily avoid breaking application
MS MS MSABI by using currently unused ifr_ifru.ifru_flags[2]
Maxim Sobolev wrote:
There is no much point in this patch, because it will increase size of
struct ifreq, which means that no ioctl's from older apps will be accept
ed
anyway. Therefore, there is no difference between those two, while my
approach is obviously cleaner.
It
Folks,
When implementing ability to switch interface into promisc mode using
ifconfig(8) I've stumbled into the problem with already exhausted
space in the `short if_flags' field in the ifnet structure. I need to
allocate one new flag, while we already have 16 IFF_* flags, and even
one
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 09:43:01PM +0300, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
When implementing ability to switch interface into promisc mode using
ifconfig(8) I've stumbled into the problem with already exhausted
space in the `short if_flags' field in the ifnet structure. I need to
allocate one new flag,
14 matches
Mail list logo
