I worked on my own version of this, before seeing that this one was already posted to the list. Sorry for the collision.
Message-Id: <20230410214157.1017054-1-dzfkct.busybo...@pacien.net> It differs mainly in the terminology: it talks about the SKB priority instead of the CoS. Though it should perhaps be the "socket priority" instead? The VLAN CoS mapping isn't automatic. It also differs a bit in the way errors are handled, and puts the priority in the client_data struct with the rest of the settings. <peron.clem at gmail.com>: > I'm still testing this patch and I'm unsure if we need to set the > priority for all the sockets. > [...] > udhcp_send_raw_packet() set the priority and not > udhcp_send_kernel_packet(). It seems that the former is used for multicast, the latter for unicast, used in particular for renew and release. So things should probably be kept consistent here. <rep.dot.nop at gmail.com>: > > > +//usage: "\n -y PRIORITY CoS value 0 .. 7, default 0" > > I don't see that you would cap the value to 7 anywhere, do you? > The manpage seems to imply that 0..6 can be used by unprivileged users, > higher values require CAP_NET_ADMIN which is fine per se; I assume the > kernel does enough sanity-checking so we can attempt to pass whatever > the user said. I believe 0 to 7 would correspond to VLAN CoS (PCP)? Though that should not be limited here for the socket priority. -- Pacien TRAN-GIRARD <pacien.trangir...@pacien.net> _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox