Stephen, I think your mail didn't make it to netdev. Majordomo seems
to be working badly with special charsets (my mails used to be totally
ignored because of charset and/or encoding issues).
On 5/27/07, Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow, I searched for this a lot! It could be
Hi Ben,
On 5/22/07, Ben Greear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PACKET_(ADD|REMOVE)_MEMBERSHIP, I need to query the real device state.
I have the same problem. I think you can tell by looking at bit 0x100
in /sys/class/net/[ethX]/flags
Not exactly fun to use, but it seems to work.
Wow, I
Hi David,
On 5/22/07, David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone know the reasoning for masking out the PROMISC flag
in dev_get_flags() ?
Because promiscuous status is a counter, not a binary
on-off state.
You can't expect to just clear it and expect all the
other promiscuous users to
Martín Ferrari wrote:
Hi, for the nth time I send this email, hoping that majordomo won't eat
it again.
I know this has been extensibly discussed circa 2001, but I found that
there's still problems: in debian (at least) neither ifconfig nor ip
can tell that the interface is in promiscuous
From: Ben Greear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 17:08:18 -0700
Anyone know the reasoning for masking out the PROMISC flag
in dev_get_flags() ?
Because promiscuous status is a counter, not a binary
on-off state.
You can't expect to just clear it and expect all the
other promiscuous
David Miller wrote:
From: Ben Greear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 17:08:18 -0700
Anyone know the reasoning for masking out the PROMISC flag
in dev_get_flags() ?
Because promiscuous status is a counter, not a binary
on-off state.
You can't expect to just clear it and expect all
Hi, for the nth time I send this email, hoping that majordomo won't eat
it again.
I know this has been extensibly discussed circa 2001, but I found that
there's still problems: in debian (at least) neither ifconfig nor ip
can tell that the interface is in promiscuous mode.
I know about the
