From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 27 23:20:54 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3878316A41F; Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:20:54 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Received: from pittgoth.com (ns1.pittgoth.com [216.38.206.188]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D136043D48; Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:20:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (net-ix.gw.ai.net [205.134.160.6] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by pittgoth.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j9RNVSx2059972 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 27 Oct 2005 19:31:29 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 19:20:00 -0400 From: Tom Rhodes To: Max Laier 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> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.5 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:20:54 -0000 On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 14:15:47 +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. 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