Christophe Devriese wrote:
It would however be considerable effort to do this. Is this going to end up
unapplied like my last patch, or ?
I don't get to make this decision..and when I ask such questions...they
are usually ignored unless I also post a working patch
I think you could start w
Christophe Devriese wrote:
It would however be considerable effort to do this. Is this going to end up
unapplied like my last patch, or ?
I don't get to make this decision..and when I ask such questions...they
are usually ignored unless I also post a working patch
I think you could start w
It would however be considerable effort to do this. Is this going to end up
unapplied like my last patch, or ?
Regards,
Christophe
On Tuesday 08 August 2006 18:36, you wrote:
> Christophe Devriese wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 10:50:08AM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> >>Currently, the bridge h
Christophe Devriese wrote:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 10:50:08AM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
Currently, the bridge hook logic is something like:
if (bridge-consumed-pkt) {
return
}
// drop through to other layers
There are several other hooks I'd like to see added (pktgen receive
process
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 10:50:08AM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> Currently, the bridge hook logic is something like:
>
> if (bridge-consumed-pkt) {
> return
> }
>
> // drop through to other layers
>
>
> There are several other hooks I'd like to see added (pktgen receive
> processing,
> mac-
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 11:02:20 +0200
Christophe Devriese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tuesday 01 August 2006 19:21, you wrote:
John W. Linville wrote:
I'm just not sure that cleverness is worth the headache, especially
since the most clever things usually only work b
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 11:02:20 +0200
Christophe Devriese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 August 2006 19:21, you wrote:
> > John W. Linville wrote:
> > >>>I'm just not sure that cleverness is worth the headache, especially
> > >>>since the most clever things usually only work by accident...
