David Miller wrote:
From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com> Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 14:48:45 -0700One could I suppose try to ammend the information passed to allow tcpdump to say "oh, this was a tx packet on the same machine on which I am tracing so don't worry about checksum mismatch"We do this already!
I'll try to go pester folks in tcpdump-workers then. rick - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: expected behavior of PF_PACKET on NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_RX device?
- From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
- Re: expected behavior of PF_PACKET on NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_RX device?
- References:
- Re: expected behavior of PF_PACKET on NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_RX device?
- From: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
- Re: expected behavior of PF_PACKET on NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_RX device?
- From: Dave Johnson <djohnson+linux-kernel@sw.starentnetworks.com>
- Re: expected behavior of PF_PACKET on NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_RX device?
- From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>
- Re: expected behavior of PF_PACKET on NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_RX device?
- From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
- Re: expected behavior of PF_PACKET on NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_RX device?
- Prev by Date: Re: expected behavior of PF_PACKET on NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_RX device?
- Next by Date: SC1200 failure in 2.6.23 and 2.6.24-rc1-git10
- Previous by thread: Re: expected behavior of PF_PACKET on NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_RX device?
- Next by thread: Re: expected behavior of PF_PACKET on NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_RX device?
- Index(es):
![]() |