* Kent R. Spillner [2014-07-10 20:47]:
> I saw this was already committed, but one tiny consistency nit inline below.
I'd argue it's not consistency, rather the opposite, since:
> > - mh.mh_len = 4;
> > + bpf_mtap_hdr(arg, (caddr_t)&afh, 4, m, direction, NULL);
you see this was very mechani
I saw this was already committed, but one tiny consistency nit inline below.
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 05:11:22PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> I'll need this for some upcoming changes, at least to do it WITHOUT
> adding the 3rd or 4th or 5th copy of the bpf_mtap loop. most of these
> bpf_mtap_* ar
I'll need this for some upcoming changes, at least to do it WITHOUT
adding the 3rd or 4th or 5th copy of the bpf_mtap loop. most of these
bpf_mtap_* are almost identical, minor differences in what to prepend,
and foremost: passing custom copy functions. since bpf_mtap is all
over the place I made b
