Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:28:10 -0800 From: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu> To: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: changes to make ethernet packets able to be unaligned... Message-ID: <20050318082810.GC37984@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <20050318021907.H844@odysseus.silby.com> References: <20050317221359.GN89312@funkthat.com> <20050318021907.H844@odysseus.silby.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Silbersack wrote this message on Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 02:21 -0600: > > On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > >Ok, since you wanted to look at it more... I have a working copy of > >making packets alignment safe for ip in p4 at as change 73150: > >http://perforce.freebsd.org/changeView.cgi?CH=73150&ignore=GO%21 > > > >This currently is only for arm and I plan to now remove the code from > >epe.c that copies the packet around since it's really stupid, and > >considering how easily NetBSD did this (it took about about 5 minutes > >to get this code running), I'm ashamed that I didn't do this a while > >back when I was working on if_re... > > > >Comments please? > > I'm confused - don't sparc64 and alpha have similar alignment > requirements? Why does arm require code changes? yes, the alignment constraints for arm are the same.. the reason I said the above is only for arm is the epe driver (which is only on an ARM core) has been made to use the new feature... The changes to ip_input.c will work with other drivers as well... it just needs to make sure that the proper defines are in amd64 and i386 so that we don't do the fix up when we don't need to... -- John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579 "All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050318082810.GC37984>