Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:18:53 +0400 From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> To: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet ip_carp.c Message-ID: <20051027071852.GB6598@comp.chem.msu.su> In-Reply-To: <200510261416.09346.max@love2party.net> References: <200510260557.j9Q5vZ7J076711@repoman.freebsd.org> <20051026093536.GF41520@cell.sick.ru> <20051026105820.X32255@fledge.watson.org> <200510261416.09346.max@love2party.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 02:15:47PM +0200, Max Laier wrote: > On Wednesday 26 October 2005 11:58, Robert Watson wrote: > > On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 10:15:09AM +0100, Robert Watson wrote: > > > R> I think we may actually be in need of either a new flag, > > > R> IFF_OKSODONTTREATTHISQUITELIKEANINTERFACE, or maybe a more reliable > > > way R> for protocols to ask if an interface is a loopback interface or > > > not. > > > > > > I'd prefer to rewrite those subsystems that use interface layer but > > > aren't actually interfaces. I have plans to do this for CARP. > > > > At least in the case of if_disc, this won't help. I'm not quite sure why > > if_disc is IFF_LOOPBACK. > > Sad answer seems to be: copy and paste. IFF_LOOPBACK is part of 1.1 which > also contains the following comment: > > /* > * Discard interface driver for protocol testing and timing. > * (Based on the loopback.) > */ > > So it might be a good idea to get rid of it and work from there. During simple comparative testing of if_disc with and without IFF_LOOPBACK I failed to notice any difference. Would anybody object to just dropping IFF_LOOPBACK from if_disc flags? -- Yar
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051027071852.GB6598>