On Monday 19 December 2005 01:38 pm, Jeremie Le Hen wrote: > 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 ?
BPF JIT compiler converts BPF instructions into native machine code when BIOCSETF ioctl is issued, and then the native filter is used to filter packets instead of bpf_filter(), which is a simple virtual machine. > Does this change will lead to a new note in bpf(4) manual > page once it won't be experimental any more ? Yes. Maybe bpf(9), too. Jung-uk Kim _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"