On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Sowmini Varadhan
wrote:
> On (01/02/17 17:31), Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for adding this.
>>
>> walk_v3_tx is almost identical to walk_v1_v2_tx. That function can
>> just be extended to add a v3 case where it already multiplexes between
>> v1 and v2.
>
>
On (01/02/17 17:31), Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>
> Thanks for adding this.
>
> walk_v3_tx is almost identical to walk_v1_v2_tx. That function can
> just be extended to add a v3 case where it already multiplexes between
> v1 and v2.
I looked at that, but the sticky point is that v1/v2 sets up the
r
On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Sowmini Varadhan
wrote:
> Add a test case and sample code for (TPACKET_V3, PACKET_TX_RING)
Thanks for adding this.
walk_v3_tx is almost identical to walk_v1_v2_tx. That function can
just be extended to add a v3 case where it already multiplexes between
v1 and v2.
Add a test case and sample code for (TPACKET_V3, PACKET_TX_RING)
Signed-off-by: Sowmini Varadhan
---
v2: Added test case.
tools/testing/selftests/net/psock_tpacket.c | 110 ++-
1 files changed, 109 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/
