netdev
[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

Re: IFF_PROMISC bug?

from [Andi Kleen] [Permanent Link][Original]
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: IFF_PROMISC bug?
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:09:32 +0100
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, ak@xxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <3C6A1EF5.1BF97B99@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <3C6A0817.B50EFC74@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20020212.223929.66060180.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <3C6A0F32.DE282B67@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20020212.234325.59465194.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <3C6A1EF5.1BF97B99@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i 
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 03:08:21AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Can we at least return -EOPNOTSUPPORTED, please?  Otherwise you have the
> current situation: random binaries breaking when you run them under
> 2.2.x versus 2.4.x.

2.2 behaved the same way. Only 2.0 did differently.

-Andi
[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  Re: IFF_PROMISC bug?, Jeff Garzik
Next by Date:  Re: IFF_PROMISC bug?, Jeff Garzik
Previous by Thread:  Re: IFF_PROMISC bug?, Jeff Garzik
Next by Thread:  Re: IFF_PROMISC bug?, Jeff Garzik
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]