Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:38:36 +0100
From:      Jeremie Le Hen <jeremie@le-hen.org>
To:        Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/sys/amd64/amd64 bpf_jit_machdep.c bpf_jit_machdep.h src/sys/conf files files.amd64 files.i386 options.amd64 options.i386 src/sys/i386/i386 bpf_jit_machdep.c bpf_jit_machdep.h src/sys/net bpf.c bpf_jitter.c bpf_jitter.h bpfdesc.h
Message-ID:  <20051219183835.GC3512@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org>
In-Reply-To: <200512060258.jB62wCnk084452@repoman.freebsd.org>
References:  <200512060258.jB62wCnk084452@repoman.freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, Jung-uk,

On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 02:58:12AM +0000, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> jkim        2005-12-06 02:58:12 UTC
> 
>   FreeBSD src repository
> 
>   Modified files:
>     sys/conf             files files.amd64 files.i386 
>                          options.amd64 options.i386 
>     sys/net              bpf.c bpfdesc.h 
>   Added files:
>     sys/amd64/amd64      bpf_jit_machdep.c bpf_jit_machdep.h 
>     sys/i386/i386        bpf_jit_machdep.c bpf_jit_machdep.h 
>     sys/net              bpf_jitter.c bpf_jitter.h 
>   Log:
>   Add experimental BPF Just-In-Time compiler for amd64 and i386.
>   
>   Use the following kernel configuration option to enable:
>   
>           options BPF_JITTER
>   
>   If you want to use bpf_filter() instead (e. g., debugging), do:
>   
>           sysctl net.bpf.jitter.enable=0
>   
>   to turn it off.
>   
>   Currently BIOCSETWF and bpf_mtap2() are unsupported, and bpf_mtap() is
>   partially supported because 1) no need, 2) avoid expensive m_copydata(9).
>   
>   Obtained from:  WinPcap 3.1 (for i386)

Though the name looks quite exciting, I don't really know what it is.
I tried to look on WinPcap's website as well as searching on Google,
but found nothing relevant.  Could you explain in a few words what
it is and the difference with the old bpf(4) behaviour, please ?
Does this change will lead to a new note in bpf(4) manual page once
it won't be experimental any more ?

Best regards,
-- 
Jeremie Le Hen
< jeremie at le-hen dot org >< ttz at chchile dot org >



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051219183835.GC3512>