Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 19:20:00 -0400 From: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org> To: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> Cc: yar@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, glebius@FreeBSD.org, rwatson@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet ip_carp.c Message-ID: <20051027192000.57e83aff.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> 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, 26 Oct 2005 14:15:47 +0200 Max Laier <max@love2party.net> 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. IIRC, someone told me or I read somewhere that if_disc is somewhat based on lo(4). There may be more sections where code is similar - rotted - over time. -- Tom Rhodes
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051027192000.57e83aff.trhodes>