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>