Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 17:11:38 -0700 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: Mindaugas Rasiukevicius <rmind@netbsd.org> Cc: tech-net@netbsd.org, guy@alum.mit.edu, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BPF_MISC+BPF_COP and BPF_COPX Message-ID: <CAJ-Vmom_MmjYATxQFac0=Nyx2mM4vt1afkh1v9MWb_MZ-qYvMw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20130804225434.87A9C14A152@mail.netbsd.org> References: <20130804191310.2FFBB14A152@mail.netbsd.org> <9813E50B-C557-4FE1-BADF-A2CFFCBB8BD7@felyko.com> <20130804195538.C87A614A135@mail.netbsd.org> <CAJ-VmokkbWCWmYng1QCpKOrfDuOC=0J1mjRX-kNDQj2%2BYO1rjA@mail.gmail.com> <20130804225434.87A9C14A152@mail.netbsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4 August 2013 15:54, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius <rmind@netbsd.org> wrote: > Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: >> I think it's slightly unfair to propose a new extension for BPF >> without any in-tree users. >> > > We have in-tree user in NetBSD as mentioned in the previous email: Ah, cool. I missed that. >> > It provides us a capability to offload more complex packet processing. >> > My primary user would be NPF in NetBSD, e.g. one of the operations is to >> > lookup an IP address in a table/ipset. > > I would like to coordinate the reservation of BPF opcodes though. That's a good idea. I have no problem with that. -adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-Vmom_MmjYATxQFac0=Nyx2mM4vt1afkh1v9MWb_MZ-qYvMw>