| To: | ak@xxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: IFF_PROMISC bug? |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 12 Feb 2002 22:22:09 -0800 (PST) |
| Cc: | jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20020213071933.A22699@wotan.suse.de> |
| References: | <3C69F19E.4FF14164@mandrakesoft.com> <20020212.205809.70219775.davem@redhat.com> <20020213071933.A22699@wotan.suse.de> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 07:19:33 +0100 Turning on/off the flag virtually when the reference count is >0 would break compatibility so it is not done. Hmmm, I'm surprised this is being noticed now being that it has behaved this way for... something like 4 years, perhaps longer. :-) |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: IFF_PROMISC bug?, Andi Kleen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: IFF_PROMISC bug?, Jeff Garzik |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: IFF_PROMISC bug?, Andi Kleen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: IFF_PROMISC bug?, Jeff Garzik |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |