| To: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: tun device - bug or feature? WAS(Re: IMQ / new Dummy device post. |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 25 Apr 2004 21:38:06 -0700 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, syrius.ml@xxxxxxxxxx, maxk@xxxxxxxxxxxx, jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1082816083.1054.32.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <wazza.87ad18jbdl.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <1082427350.1034.70.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <wazza.87fzayw1fy.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <wazza.87fzaxmr6x.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <wazza.87hdvddqxq.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <1082639764.1059.81.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87oepjx65r.87n053x65r@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1082719745.1057.27.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1082816083.1054.32.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On 24 Apr 2004 10:14:43 -0400 jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Jeff, Dave: Would it be fair to say when packets get injected into the > stack by a netdev via netif_rx(), the skb headers are expected to be > ponting into some specific places? I am not sure if theres a hard > fastened rule defined anywhere. What do ipv4 tunnels do? They merely modify 'nh' and 'mac' ".raw" and pass the packet in. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH][ATM]: [fore200e] make use tasklet configurable (2 of 2), David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | variation in thruput w/ change in mtu on gige, Abhijit Karmarkar |
| Previous by Thread: | tun device - bug or feature? WAS(Re: IMQ / new Dummy device post., jamal |
| Next by Thread: | Re: tun device - bug or feature? WAS(Re: IMQ / new Dummy device post., Max Krasnyansky |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |