| To: | jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: IFF_PROMISC bug? |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:17:36 -0800 (PST) |
| Cc: | ak@xxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <3C6A1EF5.1BF97B99@mandrakesoft.com> |
| References: | <3C6A0F32.DE282B67@mandrakesoft.com> <20020212.234325.59465194.davem@redhat.com> <3C6A1EF5.1BF97B99@mandrakesoft.com> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 03:08:21 -0500
That little weird thing called binary compatibility. It is possible to
support IFF_PROMISC until the end of time, because the NIC promisc bit
is similarly binary. The change I propose is to regain what we have
already lost.
(note: we "lost" this 5 years ago, and nobody has cared all
this time, keep that in mind :-)
How do we handle SIOCSIFFLAGS then?
Do we just cancel out all the counts if we are asked to clear the
IFF_PROMISC bit? That is definitely wrong, it blows away the entire
intention of having a count in the first place. Or do we make it act
as a "decrement 1 count"? That sounds equally lousy to me.
We can't just ignore the request by your very arguments. Right?
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: IFF_PROMISC bug?, Jeff Garzik |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: IFF_PROMISC bug?, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: IFF_PROMISC bug?, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: IFF_PROMISC bug?, Jeff Garzik |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |