Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:10:06 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> To: Hiten Pandya <hiten@unixdaemons.com> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Loopback device dillema Message-ID: <15975.51006.529064.198196@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030306192930.GD55182@unixdaemons.com> References: <20030306183854.GA47557@unixdaemons.com> <20030306110011.B27325@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> <20030306190632.GB55182@unixdaemons.com> <20030306111516.A19108@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> <20030306192930.GD55182@unixdaemons.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hiten Pandya writes:
> Brooks Davis (Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:15:16AM -0800) wrote:
> > Not to mention:
> >
> > netinet6/{in6_pcb.c,in6_src.c,ip6_input.c,ip6_output.c,nd6.c}
>
> > What is gained by making loopback default?
>
> Nothing is gained. But it's neccessary fix this, IMHO. Not to mention
> that our loopback device code looks terribly ugly anyway. :-)
Why bother with a non-problem like this that's only likely to create a
bikeshed? Work on something that matters. For example, a better use
of your time might be to convert a network driver to use busdma, or to
be SMP safe.
Drew
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15975.51006.529064.198196>