Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 09:33:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Cc: kjc@csl.sony.co.jp, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bandwidth throttling etc. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.980428093256.12427B-100000@current1.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <199804280857.KAA26098@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
wasn't setsockopt changed to do > 108 in a recent -current? (2 weeks ago?) have you a new -current? On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > Playing with ipfirewall and mbufs, i am hitting a problem related to > the size of mbufs. > > In my implementation, i need to add a couple of fields (6 bytes total) > to the struct ip_fw, bringing its size to 112 bytes. > > setsockopt() fails for sizes>108 bytes. > > there are two ways i can save the space: > > 1) reduce IP_FW_MAX_PORTS to 7 instead of 10 > 2) move counters and statistic info (timestamp) to the end > of the struct ip_fw, and allow setsockopt() to work only > on the initial part of the structure. > > suggestions ? The first one is a quick solution to the problem, i am > just not sure how widespread are rules using 8,9,10 ports (where there > is a difference between new and old behaviour). > > cheers > luigi > -----------------------------+-------------------------------------- > Luigi Rizzo | Dip. di Ingegneria dell'Informazione > email: luigi@iet.unipi.it | Universita' di Pisa > tel: +39-50-568533 | via Diotisalvi 2, 56126 PISA (Italy) > fax: +39-50-568522 | http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ > _____________________________|______________________________________ > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.980428093256.12427B-100000>