Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 19:51:19 +1200 From: Andrew Thompson <thompsa@freebsd.org> To: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/net bridge.c Message-ID: <20050704075119.GA11500@heff.fud.org.nz> In-Reply-To: <20050704005749.D21939@odysseus.silby.com> References: <200507031824.j63IO3Bs009536@repoman.freebsd.org> <20050703184013.U21939@odysseus.silby.com> <20050703235733.GA8138@heff.fud.org.nz> <20050704005749.D21939@odysseus.silby.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 12:59:10AM -0500, Mike Silbersack wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Andrew Thompson wrote: > > >Both bridges tap their packets off near the end of ether_input(). Since > >we only need to check alignment when using pfil(9) and each bridge has > >its own knobs to control filtering, it seems best to leave it where it > >is at the moment. > > Well, where it was at was the network drivers. Since we know that em is > the (only?) violator, you're arguing for the backout of your patch when > you say "leave it where it is." > > The other protocol stacks need aligned headers too, that's why I'm curious > as to the bridge-specificness of this patch. Because I have only made a handful of commits so far and they were all to if_bridge, so im a little narrow minded at the moment ;-) If there is a better way to do this im all for it. Andrew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050704075119.GA11500>