On 30 August 2011 16:05, Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 10:19:20AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote: > > On Aug 30, 3:18pm, bou...@antioche.eu.org (Manuel Bouyer) wrote: > > -- Subject: Re: netbsd32 emulation in driver open() or read() > > > > | > Yes, look at PK_32 in the process flags. If you are going to do this, > please > > | > look at what FreeBSD did with bpf_ts/bpf_xhdr and the time format > changes > > | > and do the same (provide timespec/bintime etc). This is how they > handle > > | > compatibility mode too. > > | > > | This is related to the BIOCSTSTAMP ioctl isn't it ? I can see how it's > used > > | in kernel but I couldn't find it in userland. So, to me it looks like > > | the old bpf_hdr is used most of the time ... > > | I'm not sure if it's worth implementing BIOCSTSTAMP (and we have to > assure > > | compat for bpf_hdr anyway) > > > > Might as well bite the bullet and do the whole thing because with 10Gb+ > > ethernet what we have now just does not cut it. > > This is not only the BIOCSTSTAMP that we need then, but also the zero-copy > stuff, and probably more. And userland tools to use it (because AFAIK > freebsd's tcpdump still uses the old bpf_hdr ...) > > That may be nice to have, but won't help with my problem which is > getting a N32 mips binary to talk to a N64 kernel. > If the structure was versioned to have 64 bit fixed sized timestamps, then the problem goes away for new code, though it does leave a COMPAT50 issue for older code...
