On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Daniel Borkmann <danborkm...@iogearbox.net> wrote:
> Well, not everyone on netdev might be following this thread (resp. > following fully). The best way to get responses for a patch is to go > through the normal patch submission process on netdev, and if you like > to request for comments, then mark it as RFC in the subject. This way, > people will know and likely comment on it if it makes sense or not. OK good to know. > As Eric mentioned earlier, for now there seems not to be a reliable > way to get to know which ops are present and which not. It's not > really nice, but if you want to make use of those new (ANC*) features, > probably checking kernel version might be the only way if I'm not > missing something. Now net-next is closed, but if it reopens, I'll > submit a version 2 of my patch where you've been CC'd to. If it gets > in, then at least it's for sure that since kernel <xyz> this kind of > feature test is present. thanks, yes, I believe we do need some sort of validation on the ancilliary features. _______________________________________________ tcpdump-workers mailing list tcpdump-workers@lists.tcpdump.org https://lists.sandelman.ca/mailman/listinfo/tcpdump-workers
