Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 01 Feb 2013 16:17:47 +0400
From:      "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Vijay Singh <vijju.singh@gmail.com>
Cc:        "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <net@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Why call ETHER_BPF_MTAP on Tx when not tracing
Message-ID:  <510BB26B.9040807@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <CALCNsJSsHt52tNRJh_-X8Ybqsr%2BbN8fnm1puTspxq4J4Goc2Og@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <CALCNsJSsHt52tNRJh_-X8Ybqsr%2BbN8fnm1puTspxq4J4Goc2Og@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 01.02.2013 10:09, Vijay Singh wrote:
> I see that BPFIF_LOCK() in bpf_mtap() is getting invoked, even
> though I am not tracing the interface. Is this expected?
This should not happen, since BPF_MTAP macro checks if BFP consumers
are present (via bpf_peers_present()) before calling bpf_mtap.

Btw, locking model is different in -current, you can take a look on
BPF changes in head starting from r233937.

> 
> -vijay
> 
> PS: I am running 8.2. 
> _______________________________________________ 
> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list 
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To
> unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
> 


-- 
WBR, Alexander



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?510BB26B.9040807>