sagun shakya wrote:
Sebastien Roy wrote:
Thanks Sagun; do you have a webrev that diffs against your previous
updates?
Sorry, I hadn't generated the webrev. Here are the diffs against my
previous updates.
http://cr.opensolaris.org/~sagun/webrev-seb-comments/
The webrev against the libpcap s
sagun shakya wrote:
Hi Seb and Guy,
I've generated a new webrev that incorporates your comments. The webrev
can be found at:
http://cr.opensolaris.org/~sagun/libpcap-review2/
Thanks Sagun; do you have a webrev that diffs against your previous updates?
-Seb
-
This is the tcpdump-workers lis
Sebastien Roy wrote:
Sorry, I hadn't generated the webrev. Here are the diffs against my
previous updates.
http://cr.opensolaris.org/~sagun/webrev-seb-comments/
The webrev against the libpcap source are here:
http://cr.opensolaris.org/~sagun/libpcap-review2/
Great. Only a couple of nits:
Sebastien Roy wrote:
sagun shakya wrote:
Hi Seb and Guy,
I've generated a new webrev that incorporates your comments. The
webrev can be found at:
http://cr.opensolaris.org/~sagun/libpcap-review2/
Thanks Sagun; do you have a webrev that diffs against your previous
updates?
Sorry, I hadn'
Paolo Abeni wrote:
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 01:20 -0800, Guy Harris wrote:
What's the advantage of requiring that
pcap_get_monitor_mode_availability() be called after pcap_activate()?
This way all the platform/device dependent code can be placed into
pcap_activate(), elsewhere we have to split/d
hello,
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 01:20 -0800, Guy Harris wrote:
> What's the advantage of requiring that
> pcap_get_monitor_mode_availability() be called after pcap_activate()?
This way all the platform/device dependent code can be placed into
pcap_activate(), elsewhere we have to split/duplicated s
Paolo Abeni wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing the point, but I think a similar situation
currently happens in the pcap_findalldevs() function, which ultimately
calls pcap_open_live()/pcap_close() for each discovered device.
That's an implementation detail; if there were a way of determining
whether
Guy Harris wrote:
> Paolo Abeni wrote:
>
> > I thought that such things (pcap API to ask for supported parameters)
> > could be implemented adding dedicated fields into the pcap struct (on in
> > a pcap_t sub structure), which must be set by the platform specific
> > pcap_activate().
>
> That woul
Guy,
no I haven't seen the message. I'll search on the mail archive and let
you know.
Thanks, Luca
Guy Harris wrote:
Luca Deri wrote:
is there any chance to see PF_RING support in libpcap source tree?
Please let me know if I can do something in order to push this process.
I'd sent a messa
