Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 00:59:10 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Andrew Thompson <thompsa@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/net bridge.c Message-ID: <20050704005749.D21939@odysseus.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <20050703235733.GA8138@heff.fud.org.nz> References: <200507031824.j63IO3Bs009536@repoman.freebsd.org> <20050703184013.U21939@odysseus.silby.com> <20050703235733.GA8138@heff.fud.org.nz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Andrew Thompson wrote: >> What's the route that a packet takes before it gets to the bridge? If it >> goes through ether_input, it would make sense to put the alignment there >> when necessary. > > Both bridges tap their packets off near the end of ether_input(). Since > we only need to check alignment when using pfil(9) and each bridge has > its own knobs to control filtering, it seems best to leave it where it > is at the moment. Well, where it was at was the network drivers. Since we know that em is the (only?) violator, you're arguing for the backout of your patch when you say "leave it where it is." The other protocol stacks need aligned headers too, that's why I'm curious as to the bridge-specificness of this patch. Mike "Silby" Silbersack
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050704005749.D21939>