On 9/5/2024 5:10 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> Use pcap_next_ex rather than just pcap_next because pcap_next
> always blocks if there is no packets to receive.
>
> Bugzilla ID: 1526
> Fixes: 4c173302c307 ("pcap: add new driver")
> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
>
> Reported-by: Ofer Dagan
> Signed-off-by:
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 03:24:42 +0100
Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 10/10/2024 3:21 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 03:14:48 +0100
> > Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/5/2024 5:10 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> >>> Use pcap_next_ex rather than just pcap_next because pcap_next
On 10/10/2024 3:21 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 03:14:48 +0100
> Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>
>> On 9/5/2024 5:10 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>> Use pcap_next_ex rather than just pcap_next because pcap_next
>>> always blocks if there is no packets to receive.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Step
On 9/5/2024 5:10 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> Use pcap_next_ex rather than just pcap_next because pcap_next
> always blocks if there is no packets to receive.
>
Hi Stephen,
Do you know if using 'pcap_next_ex()' (instead of 'pcap_next()') has any
dependency impact?
Like can we rely that all lib
Use pcap_next_ex rather than just pcap_next because pcap_next
always blocks if there is no packets to receive.
Bugzilla ID: 1526
Reported-by: Ofer Dagan
Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger
---
drivers/net/pcap/pcap_ethdev.c | 33 +
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+),
5 matches
Mail list logo