Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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, Ulrich Spoerlein <uspoerlein@gmail.com>
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>