From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 8 19:32:52 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94C2F1065677 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 19:32:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from thompsa@FreeBSD.org) Received: from pele.citylink.co.nz (pele.citylink.co.nz [202.8.44.226]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BFD18FC13 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 19:32:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pele.citylink.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73B9E7BC23; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 08:32:51 +1300 (NZDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at citylink.co.nz Received: from pele.citylink.co.nz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (pele.citylink.co.nz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TArvkdDCRvqt; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 08:32:47 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from citylink.fud.org.nz (unknown [202.8.44.45]) by pele.citylink.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 08:32:47 +1300 (NZDT) Received: by citylink.fud.org.nz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id A59D211432; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 08:32:46 +1300 (NZDT) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 08:32:46 +1300 From: Andrew Thompson To: d@delphij.net Message-ID: <20100308193246.GB38183@citylink.fud.org.nz> References: <4B954C19.9050606@delphij.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B954C19.9050606@delphij.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why lagg(4) wants ~IFF_DRV_OACTIVE? X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:32:52 -0000 On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:12:25AM -0800, Xin LI wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi, > > Maybe this is a stupid question but I really don't understand why a > interface with IFF_DRV_OACTIVE can't be added to a lagg(4) interface. > Looking at OpenBSD code, they do this since the day 0. > > Could anyone shed some light, why we need to enforce this check? :) I think it was just carried over, I dont see any reason to keep it. Andrew