From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 27 12:47:49 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E917316A420 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:47:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gregorynou@altern.org) Received: from esemetz.metz.supelec.fr (esemetz.metz.supelec.fr [193.48.224.212]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3924443D45 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:47:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gregorynou@altern.org) Received: from smtp.metz.supelec.fr (smtp.metz.supelec.fr [193.48.224.205]) by esemetz.metz.supelec.fr (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id k0RCllC19240 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:47:47 +0100 Received: from [193.48.225.2] (nou.rez-metz.supelec.fr [193.48.225.2]) by smtp.metz.supelec.fr (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k0RCbcZ11280 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:37:38 +0100 Message-ID: <43DA1672.1080609@altern.org> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:47:46 +0100 From: Gregory Nou User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060113) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Question on IFF_PPROMISC (and IFF_PROMISC) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:47:50 -0000 Hi, I found a (somewhat old) post from gnn@ on this topic there : http://unix.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/FreeBSD/net/2004-09/0289.html I also think that it would be a good idea to do it (at least, it would be easier to understand, because IFF_PPROMISC is not that explicit). If nobody has already done it, I'll work on this. There is another point on which I would appreciate to know your opinion: referring to if.c[1269], I understand that if IFF_PPROMISC is set in ifp->if_flags, IFF_PROMISC should be set to (or we are in a transient situation). It appears that if_ethersubr.c[652] is working in this case. Isn't it a mistake ? Thanks a lot ! -- Gregory (Forwarded here, because I got no answers on freebsd-net@)