[tcpdump-workers] [RFC PATCH] Add new `pcap_set_buffer_size1` API.

2019-10-02 Thread mrugiero
From: Mario Rugiero The current `pcap_set_buffer_size` sets a limit of 2GiB buffer size. This changeset implements a backwards compatible mechanism to set bigger buffers. A new `pcap_set_buffer_size1` call is created, taking a `size_t` instead of an `int`, allowing for buffers as big as the platf

Re: [tcpdump-workers] [RFC PATCH] Add new `pcap_set_buffer_size1` API.

2019-10-02 Thread Guy Harris
On Oct 2, 2019, at 2:16 PM, Mario Rugiero wrote: > A new `pcap_set_buffer_size1` call is created, taking a `size_t` > instead of an `int`, allowing for buffers as big as the platform > allows. Perhaps pcap_set_buffer_size_ext (Windows-style) would be better - a 1 at the end 1) is a bit unclear

Re: [tcpdump-workers] [RFC PATCH] Add new `pcap_set_buffer_size1` API.

2019-10-02 Thread Mario Rugiero
El mié., 2 oct. 2019 a las 18:46, Guy Harris () escribió: > > On Oct 2, 2019, at 2:16 PM, Mario Rugiero wrote: > > > A new `pcap_set_buffer_size1` call is created, taking a `size_t` > > instead of an `int`, allowing for buffers as big as the platform > > allows. > > Perhaps pcap_set_buffer_size_ex

Re: [tcpdump-workers] [RFC PATCH] Add new `pcap_set_buffer_size1` API.

2019-10-02 Thread Mario Rugiero
El mié., 2 oct. 2019 a las 19:48, Mario Rugiero () escribió: > I used '1' because that's what Linux does when advertising newer > versions of syscalls. > '_ext' does look better, I think I'd go with that. On the other hand, numeric versioning is more future-proof. 'pcap_set_buffer_size_ext_ext_ext