Re: [RFC] USBdump patches

2010-11-24 Thread Weongyo Jeong
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 07:35:30PM +1300, Andrew Thompson wrote: > On 24 November 2010 18:46, Weongyo Jeong wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 01:59:47PM +1300, Andrew Thompson wrote: > >> On 24 November 2010 13:36, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > >> > On Tuesday 23 November 2010 07:18 pm, Weongyo Jeong wro

Re: [RFC] USBdump patches

2010-11-24 Thread Hans Petter Selasky
On Wednesday 24 November 2010 08:48:58 Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > I think that to be really useful the BPF code needs some additional > information through additional misc. instructions to orientate about the > data it is getting from USB. For example the frame number, state for > control trans

Re: [RFC] USBdump patches

2010-11-24 Thread Hans Petter Selasky
On Wednesday 24 November 2010 07:35:30 Andrew Thompson wrote: > On 24 November 2010 18:46, Weongyo Jeong wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 01:59:47PM +1300, Andrew Thompson wrote: > >> On 24 November 2010 13:36, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > >> > On Tuesday 23 November 2010 07:18 pm, Weongyo Jeong wrote:

Re: [RFC] USBdump patches

2010-11-23 Thread Hans Petter Selasky
On Wednesday 24 November 2010 01:18:32 Weongyo Jeong wrote: > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 06:52:36PM -0500, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > > On Tuesday 23 November 2010 06:31 pm, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > > > [CC sanitized] > > > > > > On Tuesday 23 November 2010 06:01 pm, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > > > > Dear Weo

Re: [RFC] USBdump patches

2010-11-23 Thread Andrew Thompson
On 24 November 2010 18:46, Weongyo Jeong wrote: > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 01:59:47PM +1300, Andrew Thompson wrote: >> On 24 November 2010 13:36, Jung-uk Kim wrote: >> > On Tuesday 23 November 2010 07:18 pm, Weongyo Jeong wrote: >> >>    - BPF was normally for ethernet frames (most operations were

Re: [RFC] USBdump patches

2010-11-23 Thread Weongyo Jeong
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 01:59:47PM +1300, Andrew Thompson wrote: > On 24 November 2010 13:36, Jung-uk Kim 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 t

Re: [RFC] USBdump patches

2010-11-23 Thread Weongyo Jeong
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 01:59:47PM +1300, Andrew Thompson wrote: > On 24 November 2010 13:36, Jung-uk Kim 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 t

Re: [RFC] USBdump patches

2010-11-23 Thread Weongyo Jeong
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 07:36:47PM -0500, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > On Tuesday 23 November 2010 07:18 pm, Weongyo Jeong wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 06:52:36PM -0500, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > > > On Tuesday 23 November 2010 06:31 pm, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > > > > [CC sanitized] > > > > > > > > On Tuesday

Re: [RFC] USBdump patches

2010-11-23 Thread Andrew Thompson
On 24 November 2010 13:36, Jung-uk Kim 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 exa

Re: [RFC] USBdump patches

2010-11-23 Thread Jung-uk Kim
On Tuesday 23 November 2010 07:18 pm, Weongyo Jeong wrote: > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 06:52:36PM -0500, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > > On Tuesday 23 November 2010 06:31 pm, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > > > [CC sanitized] > > > > > > On Tuesday 23 November 2010 06:01 pm, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > > > > Dear Weong

Re: [RFC] USBdump patches

2010-11-23 Thread Weongyo Jeong
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 06:52:36PM -0500, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > On Tuesday 23 November 2010 06:31 pm, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > > [CC sanitized] > > > > On Tuesday 23 November 2010 06:01 pm, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > > > Dear Weongyo, > > > > > > > NACK. You already could recognize that the patch is

Re: [RFC] USBdump patches

2010-11-23 Thread Andrew Thompson
On 24 November 2010 11:19, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > Hi, > > Please find attached official usbdump patch from HPS trying to re-use as much > as possible of Weongyo's code which was committed not long ago. You need to > SVN up to the latest 9-current. > @@ -270,7 +122,7 @@ >  * The kernel needs

Re: [RFC] USBdump patches

2010-11-23 Thread Hans Petter Selasky
Dear Weongyo, > NACK. You already could recognize that the patch is quite big and > multiple patches are mixed into one. Please separate into smallest > pieces then send freebsd-usb@ again. I don't want to do a jumbo jump. Probably it is easier if you look at the code after you've applied it

Re: [RFC] USBdump patches

2010-11-23 Thread Weongyo Jeong
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 11:19:33PM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > Hi, > > Please find attached official usbdump patch from HPS trying to re-use as much > as possible of Weongyo's code which was committed not long ago. You need to > SVN up to the latest 9-current. > > This patch should fix

Re: [RFC] USBdump patches

2010-11-23 Thread Hans Petter Selasky
NOTE: Please revert the following patch before applying my patch, else there is a conflict. http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/215764 --HPS ___ freebsd-usb@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-usb To unsubscrib