From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed May 26  8:56:33 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from ns1.cybersites.com (unknown [207.92.123.2])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C0DE153A4
	for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 26 May 1999 08:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from cyouse@cybersites.com)
Received: from f8m7n1 (dhcp77.cybersites.com [207.92.123.77])
	by ns1.cybersites.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA28964;
	Wed, 26 May 1999 10:53:40 -0400
Message-ID: <004001bea78f$eca12be0$4d7b5ccf@f8m7n1>
From: "Chuck Youse" <cyouse@cybersites.com>
To: <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>,
	"Brian Somers" <brian@Awfulhak.org>
Subject: Re: Interface UP & RUNNING flags
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 11:53:40 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

IFF_RUNNING indicates that "resources are allocated for this device", i.e.,
everything's ready to go.
IFF_UP provides an administrative control over the operational status of the
device.

Chuck Youse
Director of Systems
cyouse@cybersites.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org>
To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Date: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 7:47 AM
Subject: Interface UP & RUNNING flags


>Hi,
>
>Can someone tell me the difference between the IFF_UP and IFF_RUNNING
>flags ?
>
>Currently, the tun pseudo-device never bothers removing the RUNNING
>flag.  This can easily be fixed with
>
>Index: if_tun.c
>===================================================================
>RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/net/if_tun.c,v
>retrieving revision 1.55
>diff -u -r1.55 if_tun.c
>--- if_tun.c    1999/05/06 18:12:54     1.55
>+++ if_tun.c    1999/05/26 12:30:55
>@@ -210,6 +210,13 @@
>                }
>                splx(s);
>        }
>+
>+       if (ifp->if_flags & IFF_RUNNING) {
>+               s = splimp();
>+               ifp->if_flags &= ~IFF_RUNNING;
>+               splx(s);
>+       }
>+
>        funsetown(tp->tun_sigio);
>        selwakeup(&tp->tun_rsel);
>
>
>But is this the right fix ?  Should IFF_RUNNING be removed with the
>last address - for *all* interfaces ?
>
>Cheers.
>--
>Brian <brian@Awfulhak.org>                        <brian@FreeBSD.org>
>      <http://www.Awfulhak.org>                   <brian@OpenBSD.org>
>Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour !          <brian@uk.FreeBSD.org>
>
>
>
>
>To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
>with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
>



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message