On Nov 26, 2014, at 11:34 PM, Anil <anilkumar911@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks for your reply. I will follow the procedure when I have to checkin the code (I have not done that as of now).
>
> My question is more about, 'is it right to use another link type to log additional information about the packet ?' . The additional information is not 'really' another link layer header.
There are plenty of "link-layer header types" that include information that's not part of a link-layer header; see, for example, LINKTYPE_IEEE802_11_RADIOTAP, which precedes the 802.11 link-layer header with a metadata header containing radio information:
http://www.radiotap.org/
