From owner-freebsd-current Sun Nov 10 22:26:56 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id WAA19585 for current-outgoing; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 22:26:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (mvs.oac.ucla.edu [164.67.200.200]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA19564 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 22:26:50 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611110626.WAA19564@freefall.freebsd.org> Received: from UCLAMVS.BITNET by MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (IBM MVS SMTP V2R2.1) with BSMTP id 1528; Sun, 10 Nov 96 22:26:53 PST Date: Sun, 10 Nov 96 22:26 PST To: Bill Fenner From: Denis DeLaRoca (310) 825-4580 Subject: Re: Re: bpf-1.1, libpcap-0.2.1 and tcpdump-3.2.1 CC: current@FREEBSD.ORG Sender: owner-current@FREEBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, 10 Nov 1996 11:57:47 PST, Bill Fenner said: > In message <199611100951.BAA26958@freefall.freebsd.org> you write: > > There are several diff's between bpf-1.1 and the bpf that's in the FreeBSD > tree. Some of them seem to be the same thing done in different ways, > some of them might be different functionality. Is there anything specific > that bpf-1.1 does that FreeBSD's doesn't that you need? Humm? The bpf-1.1 change log shows fixes for various ioctl bugs, fixes for promiscuous mode handling, a fix with the handling of BIOCSRTIMEOUT whihc may or may not be relevant to the FreeBSD version... but perhaps the bpf filter (minor) fixes are more relevant? My only concern was to have the bpf code as of up to date and bug-free as possible. -- Denis