Discussion of technical issues relating to NetBSD's networking subsystem

Jon Olsson | 1 Sep 2003 09:52

Re: PF status

On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:57:56AM +0900, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> 	in case people are wondering what have happend to PF-on-netbsd:
> 
> 	i'm still awaiting kjc to update/clarify PF/ALTQ api portion.  other
> 	than that there's no major issue - PF-on-netbsd is working fine
> 	on my home router.

Are there any up-to-date patches up for testing it? And do they include
the userland tools?

Cheers,
Jon

> 
> itojun

headers

itojun | 2 Sep 2003 11:17

Re: PF status

>> 	in case people are wondering what have happend to PF-on-netbsd:
>> 
>> 	i'm still awaiting kjc to update/clarify PF/ALTQ api portion.  other
>> 	than that there's no major issue - PF-on-netbsd is working fine
>> 	on my home router.
>
>Are there any up-to-date patches up for testing it? And do they include
>the userland tools?

	will roll a tarball.  please hold.

itojun

headers

Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino | 3 Sep 2003 03:51

Re: PF status

> >> 	in case people are wondering what have happend to PF-on-netbsd:
> >> 
> >> 	i'm still awaiting kjc to update/clarify PF/ALTQ api portion.  other
> >> 	than that there's no major issue - PF-on-netbsd is working fine
> >> 	on my home router.
> >
> >Are there any up-to-date patches up for testing it? And do they include
> >the userland tools?
> 	will roll a tarball.  please hold.

	ftp://ftp.itojun.org/pub/netbsd-pf-20030903.tar.gz
	userland tools other than pfctl(8) is not included (will work on those
	later).

itojun

headers

Manuel Bouyer | 4 Sep 2003 22:02

Re: PF status

On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 10:51:28AM +0900, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> 	ftp://ftp.itojun.org/pub/netbsd-pf-20030903.tar.gz
> 	userland tools other than pfctl(8) is not included (will work on those
> 	later).

Just a minor thing: wouldn't it be better to
#define pf_tagname2tag m_nametag_tagname2tag
#define pf_tag2tagname m_nametag_tag2tagname
#define pf_tag_unref m_nametag_unref

instead of declaring a function which just calls another one ?
This should save a bit of space and some some CPU cycles

--

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer <at> antioche.eu.org>
     NetBSD: 24 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--