[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The patch of pfinet

From: zhengda
Subject: Re: The patch of pfinet
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:56:40 +0200
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20080707)

olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net wrote:

On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 08:09:24AM +0200, zhengda wrote:

The patch enables the pfinet to work with the multiplexer and use the
filter rule that only accepts the packet whose destination  is the
pfinet server.

This rather sounds like two totally orthogonal changes, that really
should go into two separate patches?
If you think it's better, I'll do it.
-CFLAGS += -fno-strict-aliasing
+CFLAGS += -fno-strict-aliasing -DPCAP_SUPPORT
+LDFLAGS += -lpcap

It is probably better not to enable this by default, to avoid problems
with the external dependency...

Of course, once you have autoconf checks/options for pcap, this won't be
an issue anymore :-)

BTW, HAVE_PCAP would be a more conventional name for this kind of thing
I believe...
+/* The BPF instruction allows IP and ARP packets */
+static struct bpf_insn ether_filter[] =

Do I get it right that the static rule doesn't check the IP, and only
when PCAP support is present, a proper rule will be generated?
-  err = get_privileged_ports (0, &master_device);
-  if (err)
-    error (2, err, "cannot get device master port");
+  if (master_device_file)
+    {
+      master_device = file_name_lookup (master_device_file , 0 , 0);
+      if (master_device == MACH_PORT_NULL)
+        error (10, 0, "file_name_lookup %s", master_device_file);
+    }
+  else
+    {
+      err = get_privileged_ports (0, &master_device);
+      if (err)
+        error (2, err, "cannot get device master port");
+    }

Is it really appropriate to use a different error code in the case of
using an alternate master device port?...
I don't know how to use the error code properly.
what is the rule to use it?
diff -urN pfinet.old/pcap_filter.c pfinet/pcap_filter.c
--- pfinet.old/pcap_filter.c    1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
+++ pfinet/pcap_filter.c    2008-08-08 07:06:26.000000000 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+   Copyright (C) 1993,94,95,96,97,98,99,2000,01,02,2006,2008
+   Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+/* Written by Zheng Da.  */

This is contradictory: Either you wrote the file yourself, in which case
the copyright years are obviously wrong; or you based it on some other
file, in which case it is not written by you alone...

If you indeed based it on some other file, please state so explicitely,
to make it clear -- or just leave out the "written by" part alltogether.

In either case, don't put it in an extra comment. If you want to include
author information, do so right after the copyright statement, before
the licensce boilerplate.
it's not based on other files.
I saw someone write the author information in the an extra comment, so I thought it was also correct.
so is the correct copyright statement something like this?
  Copyright (C) 2008
  Free Software Foundation, Inc.

  Written by Zheng Da.

  This file is part of the GNU Hurd.
+ insn = (struct bpf_insn *) malloc ((program.bf_len + 1) * sizeof (*insn));

Your mail client mangled the patch, inserting a spurious linebreak.
(Also happened in a few other places.)
I guess the reason is that the line is a little long, and my mail client break it automatically.
I think it always happens when a mail is sent to the mailing list.
Do you have any idea to prevent the mail client to do it?
I use thunderbird. I didn't find anything that can switch this function off.

Zheng Da

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]