On Thursday 11 December 2008 13:50:39 Randall Stewart wrote: > All: > > Ok here is what I have come up with.. going along the > lines of Max's suggestion.. its pretty clean I think. > > Comments would be most welcome.. > > The only thing possibly a bit dodgy is that > > 1) UDP has no per-protocol block. > 2) Instead of creating one, I am using the block pointer in the inp > as the function pointer for the tunneling. > > What this means if we EVERY did add a per protocol structure for > UDP we would need to move the function pointer in there.. > > The nice thing it does is make it so we have no structural changes to > the code... i.e. complete compatibility... no changes to inp or > other UDP structures :-) > > > Here is the patch.. please send comments ;-D
I like it, though I have no idea what the implications of using the block pointer might be. One thing about the patch: What about the multi-/broadcast cases? I think if we introduce this, we want to make sure it works there as well - no? And finally, is there a potential race with setting the function and data arriving at the socket - should udp_set_kernel_tunneling maybe check that the socket isn't bound yet? -- /"\ Best regards, | [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
