Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:20:42 -0400 From: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Cc: Vadim Goncharov <vadim_nuclight@mail.ru>, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ng_tag - new netgraph node, please test (L7 filtering possibility) Message-ID: <200606121620.44136.jkim@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20060612185751.GB1226@roadrunner.aventurien.local> References: <optax2g7jq4fjv08@nuclight.avtf.net> <opta09vodb17d6mn@nuclight.avtf.net> <20060612185751.GB1226@roadrunner.aventurien.local>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 12 June 2006 02:57 pm, Ulrich Spoerlein wrote: > Vadim Goncharov wrote: > > I hope that my explanation was helpful enough to understand :) > > Also, if you will be using 7.0, include BPF_JITTER in your kernel > > config as this will enable native code-compiling for bpf and > > ng_bpf - this will speed things up. > > Am I the only one, that thinks BPF_JITTER is a stupid name? It > suggest you add or enable jitter for the packet flow. No one wants > jitter! It sucks. Why isn't it called simply BPF_JIT? Everyone > knows what JIT stands for, JITTER on the other hand is to be > avoided. I am the guilty one and I hate the name myself. :-) This feature was imported from WinPcap: http://www.winpcap.org/docs/docs31/html/group__NPF__code.html#ga33 I didn't want another name for the same thing. Jung-uk Kim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200606121620.44136.jkim>