Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:39:20 +1100 From: Lawrence Stewart <lstewart@freebsd.org> To: Ben Kaduk <minimarmot@gmail.com> Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Julien Ridoux <jridoux@unimelb.edu.au> Subject: Re: svn commit: r227778 - head/sys/net Message-ID: <4EC9E408.9000304@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <CAK2BMK4DP=japDufnbMUgqMgmL7rRye4wMrwqzHePyreNwiu-Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <201111210417.pAL4HOdi023556@svn.freebsd.org> <CAK2BMK4DP=japDufnbMUgqMgmL7rRye4wMrwqzHePyreNwiu-Q@mail.gmail.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 11/21/11 16:12, Ben Kaduk wrote: > On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Lawrence Stewart<lstewart@freebsd.org> wrote: >> Author: lstewart >> Date: Mon Nov 21 04:17:24 2011 >> New Revision: 227778 >> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/227778 >> >> Log: >> - When feed-forward clock support is compiled in, change the BPF header to >> contain both a regular timestamp obtained from the system clock and the >> current feed-forward ffcounter value. This enables new possibilities including > > Is it really necessary to make the ABI dependent on a kernel > configuration option? This causes all sorts of headaches if loadable > modules ever want to use that ABI, something that we just ran into > with vm_page_t and friends and had a long thread on -current about. Fair question. Julien, if pcap and other consumers will happily ignore the new ffcount_stamp member in the bpf header, is there any reason to conditionally add the ffcounter into the header struct? Cheers, Lawrencehelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EC9E408.9000304>