[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: device_set_filter documentation update

From: Richard Braun
Subject: Re: device_set_filter documentation update
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:57:32 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 10:20:35PM -0300, Diego Nieto Cid wrote:
> Hello,
>         Commit 1ca2a1632d7325ee26b2c701b38c1d2e2fcb6f80 in gnumach changed
> the interface with the
>         packet filter and the GNU Mach Reference Manual got outdated.
>         Here's the email where the patch was submitted:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2006-04/msg00032.html
>         It contains a good reference with examples but I don't think they
> fit well
>         with the rest of the document.
>         I'd like to propose the following update. Everyone is invited to
> rephrase it :)

"The type defaults to native NETF filter and may be omitted"


"NETF filters are considered to be native filters, so there is no macro
for them".

There really is no macro, so the type cannot be anything else than
omitted. Later in your patch, you give the "name" 0 to the native type,
which is a bit disturbing. To make things clear, state that the default
type is the native one, and the NETF_BPF type must be passed to use this
alternate type.

"Data ingressing the device will be subject to the filter"
"Data egressing from the device will be subject to the filter"

Sorry for being annoying, but isn't it "ingressing to" or "in" ? Also,
more common expressions like "received" and "transmitted by the device"
sound more appropriate. But this is just a detail though.

You should probably describe that, when a packet is received by a
listener, the flags are *either* NETF_IN or NETF_OUT, and not a
combination of both, even though common sense would make it obvious.

Richard Braun

reply via email to

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