Bruce:
Ok some comments in line and an updated patch... I went
through and reverted and manually cut out the "extra's" that
s9indent (note not my script something I got for gnn) did :-)
And I also have some comments for you :-D
On Dec 24, 2008, at 7:46 AM, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008, Randall Stewart wrote:
4) revamped my s9indent use.. I ran it and then patched back
in just its complaints about me... that way the other s9 issues
can stay in the file untouched by me :-D
Thanks, but it still has many of the style bugs already pointed out
and a few ne
All:
Ok here is the latest... this:
1) Incorporates Matt's changes
2) Goes with Matt's idea of adding an INP.
3) We now are holding the INP lock across the
call to the tunnel as well as the append. Since
the caller will have the INP they can unlock
if they need to :-)
4) revamped my s9
On Friday 12 December 2008 14:46:30 Randall Stewart wrote:
> Ok:
>
> Here is an updated patch it:
>
> 1) Fixes style9 issues
> 2) move to _t typedef
I won't get into this.
> 3) Allow multicast/broadcast to also be tunneled.
There seems to be an error with your patch. You RUNLOCK twice in some p
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Randall Stewart wrote:
1) I went ahead and fixed the comments.. even added a ! instead of :-(
2) No problem using func_t.. changed to that.. seems nicer :-D
3) Removed an extra cr or two you pointed out.. hopefully got them all.
OK.
4) I disagree with you on the cast..
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Randall Stewart wrote:
Well tell you what Bruce:
How about if I just run the WHOLE file through s9indent...
This will fix ALL my problems.. and of course "fix" the
rest of the file too..
Any automated conversion utility is very likely to introduce more bugs than
it fixes
Ian:
No problem what so ever...
My native style is CLOSE to style(9).. but it often is hard
for me to get "all" the little twists. And with SCTP we have
2 other primary developers and a few other contributors that work
on the windoz stuff and user space... so we depend on s9indent
exclusively.
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2008-Dec-13 13:55:18 +1100, Ian Smith wrote:
> >I guess submitting patches for style(9) is considered a suicide method?
>
> Not necessarily but you need to have very good justification for any
> change. It's much easier to read a large corpus of
On 2008-Dec-13 13:55:18 +1100, Ian Smith wrote:
>I guess submitting patches for style(9) is considered a suicide method?
Not necessarily but you need to have very good justification for any
change. It's much easier to read a large corpus of code where the
code is all written in one style. I sus
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Randall Stewart wrote:
> Bruce:
>
> So lets see:
>
> 1) I went ahead and fixed the comments.. even added a ! instead of :-(
Personally: emoticons ARE punctuation; adding a period is totally anal.
> 2) No problem using func_t.. changed to that.. seems nicer :-D
I gues
Bruce:
So lets see:
1) I went ahead and fixed the comments.. even added a ! instead of :-(
2) No problem using func_t.. changed to that.. seems nicer :-D
3) Removed an extra cr or two you pointed out.. hopefully got them all.
4) I disagree with you on the cast... its not ugly.. it prevents us
On Dec 12, 2008, at 12:19 PM, Max Laier wrote:
On Friday 12 December 2008 13:56:38 Randall Stewart wrote:
On Dec 11, 2008, at 8:12 AM, Max Laier wrote:
On Thursday 11 December 2008 13:50:39 Randall Stewart wrote:
...
Another thing... kinda weird.. when I have this thing working with
SCTP an
Well tell you what Bruce:
How about if I just run the WHOLE file through s9indent...
This will fix ALL my problems.. and of course "fix" the
rest of the file too..
Unless you think its already in conformance (bet you
its not) :-)
R
On Dec 12, 2008, at 11:47 AM, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Fri, 12
On Friday 12 December 2008 13:56:38 Randall Stewart wrote:
> On Dec 11, 2008, at 8:12 AM, Max Laier wrote:
> > On Thursday 11 December 2008 13:50:39 Randall Stewart wrote:
...
> Another thing... kinda weird.. when I have this thing working with
> SCTP and I
> let the SCTP stack try to initialize th
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Randall Stewart wrote:
Here is an updated patch it:
1) Fixes style9 issues (I hope.. I went back to vi and tried tabs :-0.. sigh
one of
these doys I will figure out why my .emacs settings just never cut it :-()
Fraid not.
% Index: netinet/udp_usrreq.c
% =
Ok:
Here is an updated patch it:
1) Fixes style9 issues (I hope.. I went back to vi and tried
tabs :-0.. sigh one of
these doys I will figure out why my .emacs settings just never cut
it :-()
2) move to _t typedef
3) Allow multicast/broadcast to also be tunneled.
4) Binding is now no lon
Bruce:
On Dec 11, 2008, at 1:11 PM, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
Hi,
I am missing context of what Max's suggestion was, do you have a
reference to an old email thread?
As to the context...
Nov 18 2008 10:01 (am Eastern) I started a thread
"Thinking about UDP and tunneling"
On Dec 11, 2008, at 8:12 AM, Max Laier wrote:
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
Hi,
I am missing context of what Max's suggestion was, do you have a
reference to an old email thread?
Style bugs:
* needs style(9) and whitespace cleanup.
* C typedefs should be suffixed with _t for consistency with other
kernel typedefs.
* Function typedefs usually named like foo_func_t (s
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 b
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
On Nov 20, 2008, at 8:50 AM, Max Laier wrote:
On Thursday 20 November 2008 14:00:11 Randall Stewart wrote:
On Nov 19, 2008, at 5:33 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
Its not new, its the same ip header..
Its just you go into the mbuf chain and take out
the udp header...
well you can't do that at t
On Thursday 20 November 2008 14:00:11 Randall Stewart wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2008, at 5:33 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
> >> Its not new, its the same ip header..
> >> Its just you go into the mbuf chain and take out
> >> the udp header...
> >
> > well you can't do that at the socket buffer becasue you'
Bjoern:
I am writing this email FROM the IETF. There are MANY
drafts right now in the IETF that will SOON become RFC's on
how to run transport foo over UDP. this seems to be
a predominate thing now. IPv6 was not ready early thus
we suffer nats.. and always will (see my previous response a few
min
On Nov 19, 2008, at 5:33 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
Its not new, its the same ip header..
Its just you go into the mbuf chain and take out
the udp header...
well you can't do that at the socket buffer becasue you've discarded
the IP header. It may not even be in the mbufs you have. (though
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Randall Stewart wrote:
Hi,
[UDP tunneling of "foo"]
I am not following this thread at all but the
transport_udp_input(mbuf, offset)
jumped into my eyes.
Not sure what netgraph does... what is wanted is this in comes
+-+
| IP |
+-+
| UDP |
+-+
...
+
The openvpn port tunnels IP over UDP very efficiently and with optional
compression and encryption.
- Andrew
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROT
Randall Stewart wrote:
On Nov 19, 2008, at 3:49 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
Randall Stewart wrote:
On Nov 19, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
Randall Stewart wrote:
Dear All:
I have been contemplating UDP and tunneling. One of the
things that is a nice feature in MacOS is the abilit
[...]
> > > just those that go to that ksocket. we hook on at the socketbuf point.
> > >
> >
> > that's right. basically, use ng_ksocket(4). that would be your tunnel
> > (outer) endpoint which you would bind to udp protocol, given address
> > and port. now everything that remote tunnel (outer) e
On 11/19/08, Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Randall Stewart wrote:
>
> >
> > On Nov 19, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Randall Stewart wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear All:
> > > > I have been contemplating UDP and tunneling. One of the
> > > > things that is a nice f
On Nov 19, 2008, at 4:20 PM, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote:
On 11/19/08, Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Randall Stewart wrote:
On Nov 19, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
Randall Stewart wrote:
Dear All:
I have been contemplating UDP and tunneling. One of the
things that i
On Nov 19, 2008, at 3:49 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
Randall Stewart wrote:
On Nov 19, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
Randall Stewart wrote:
Dear All:
I have been contemplating UDP and tunneling. One of the
things that is a nice feature in MacOS is the ability of
a kernel module/ext
Randall Stewart wrote:
On Nov 19, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
Randall Stewart wrote:
Dear All:
I have been contemplating UDP and tunneling. One of the
things that is a nice feature in MacOS is the ability of
a kernel module/extension to open a kernel level socket
and have the mbu
On Nov 19, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
Randall Stewart wrote:
Dear All:
I have been contemplating UDP and tunneling. One of the
things that is a nice feature in MacOS is the ability of
a kernel module/extension to open a kernel level socket
and have the mbuf chain that arrives for
On Nov 19, 2008, at 10:35 AM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:00:27AM -0500, Randall Stewart wrote:
Dear All:
I have been contemplating UDP and tunneling. One of the
things that is a nice feature in MacOS is the ability of
a kernel module/extension to open a kernel level socket
On Nov 19, 2008, at 10:45 AM, Max Laier wrote:
On Wednesday 19 November 2008 16:00:27 Randall Stewart wrote:
Dear All:
I have been contemplating UDP and tunneling. One of the
things that is a nice feature in MacOS is the ability of
a kernel module/extension to open a kernel level socket
and h
Randall Stewart wrote:
Dear All:
I have been contemplating UDP and tunneling. One of the
things that is a nice feature in MacOS is the ability of
a kernel module/extension to open a kernel level socket
and have the mbuf chain that arrives for that port be passed
in via a function.
define "kern
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:00:27AM -0500, Randall Stewart wrote:
> Dear All:
>
> I have been contemplating UDP and tunneling. One of the
> things that is a nice feature in MacOS is the ability of
> a kernel module/extension to open a kernel level socket
> and have the mbuf chain that arrives for t
On Wednesday 19 November 2008 16:00:27 Randall Stewart wrote:
> Dear All:
>
> I have been contemplating UDP and tunneling. One of the
> things that is a nice feature in MacOS is the ability of
> a kernel module/extension to open a kernel level socket
> and have the mbuf chain that arrives for that
Dear All:
I have been contemplating UDP and tunneling. One of the
things that is a nice feature in MacOS is the ability of
a kernel module/extension to open a kernel level socket
and have the mbuf chain that arrives for that port be passed
in via a function.
We use this in our MacOS version of t
40 matches
Mail list logo
