From owner-freebsd-tokenring Wed Apr 22 11:04:04 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA03663 for freebsd-tokenring-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 11:04:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-tokenring@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from sasami.jurai.net (winter@sasami.jurai.net [207.153.65.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA03612 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 18:03:58 GMT (envelope-from winter@jurai.net) Received: from localhost (winter@localhost) by sasami.jurai.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA12016; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 14:03:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 14:03:46 -0400 (EDT) From: "Matthew N. Dodd" To: "Larry S. Lile" cc: Paul Norton , George Morgan , freebsd-tokenring@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: code updated In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-tokenring@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Larry S. Lile wrote: > The purpose is for consistency, the ethernet and other drivers make sure > that they have a sane value available. The added benefit it that if > someone forgets to set something they can be kept from crashing the > kernel. It won't get far enough to crash. Doing things just because ethernet does them isn't going to make a whole lot of sense. I'm rather annoyed with all the ethernetisms in the kernel now. If I had more free time and was only slightly more insane than I am now I believe that I'd consider rewriting a good bit of the network bits and rearranging others. > These things are more just sanity numbers, what would happen if your > baudrate was 0? What if you received a packet with 50000 bytes > (because someone else stepped on you mbuf)? Nothing, because all the relevent code checks to see if the network innterface is up before attempting to write packets. > Chances are if you write your code correctly and dont do any thing > incredibly stupid you will never see these. The attach routine will not > touch your baudrate or mtu if you have already set them. It is just > there as a safety net. I agree that we should test for hard and fast limits. MTU isn't one of the things we can determine a hard and fast limit for as its up to the adapter to provide the constraints for the MTU. (ring speed and buffer size). /* Matthew N. Dodd | A memory retaining a love you had for life winter@jurai.net | As cruel as it seems nothing ever seems to http://www.jurai.net/~winter | go right - FLA M 3.1:53 */ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-tokenring" in the body of the message