Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:16:02 +0500 From: Boris Kovalenko <boris@ntmk.ru> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] 802.1p priority (fixed) Message-ID: <41F5C802.8010307@ntmk.ru> In-Reply-To: <20050124170735.GA26830@odin.ac.hmc.edu> References: <41F33E9F.9090301@tagnet.ru> <20050123193711.GB29225@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <41F46C3C.20205@ntmk.ru> <20050124170735.GA26830@odin.ac.hmc.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello!
> by this specific implementation. I'm sure we can keep an interface that
> handles priorities as seperate interfaces, but I'm not sure we'll want
> to do it via the vlan device (attractivly simple though that is.)
>
> This patch appears to be against 4 or 5. In 6 we've largly rewritten
> ifconfig so the patch won't apply. It looks like a simple matter to fix
> this issue. We'll need to commit to 6 before 4 or 5.
>
> I've embeded some comments in the text below.
Ok, so what I should do now? Rewrite patch for 6?
>>+ if(tag < 1 || tag > 4094)
>>+ errx(1, "VLAN ID shoud be in range 1..4094");
>
>
> errx should be fully indented.
What this means? What difference between my errx and this one (from 6)?
errx(1, "must specify both vlan tag and device");
> I know other nearby code does this, but atoi should not be used. It has
> not useful error checking. strtoul should be used instead.
No problem.
>> */
>> struct vlanreq {
>>- char vlr_parent[IFNAMSIZ];
>>- u_short vlr_tag;
>>+ char vlr_parent[IFNAMSIZ];
>>+ u_int16_t vlr_tag;
>
>
> This appears to be a no-op. Is it needed?
Hmm... just to clarify that vlr_tag is 16bit value. If this is
unnecessary I may use u_short.
--
With respect,
Boris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41F5C802.8010307>