Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 23:54:12 +0100 From: Mindaugas Rasiukevicius <rmind@netbsd.org> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: tech-net@netbsd.org, guy@alum.mit.edu, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BPF_MISC+BPF_COP and BPF_COPX Message-ID: <20130804225434.87A9C14A152@mail.netbsd.org> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmokkbWCWmYng1QCpKOrfDuOC=0J1mjRX-kNDQj2%2BYO1rjA@mail.gmail.com> References: <20130804191310.2FFBB14A152@mail.netbsd.org> <9813E50B-C557-4FE1-BADF-A2CFFCBB8BD7@felyko.com> <20130804195538.C87A614A135@mail.netbsd.org> <CAJ-VmokkbWCWmYng1QCpKOrfDuOC=0J1mjRX-kNDQj2%2BYO1rjA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: > I think it's slightly unfair to propose a new extension for BPF > without any in-tree users. > We have in-tree user in NetBSD as mentioned in the previous email: > > It provides us a capability to offload more complex packet processing. > > My primary user would be NPF in NetBSD, e.g. one of the operations is to > > lookup an IP address in a table/ipset. I would like to coordinate the reservation of BPF opcodes though. -- Mindaugas
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130804225434.87A9C14A152>