From owner-freebsd-current Mon Dec 14 01:08:38 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA29082 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 01:08:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA29063; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 01:08:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA03043; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:07:37 +0100 (CET) To: Julian Elischer cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, isdn@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: if_sppp is BROKEN!!! In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 13 Dec 1998 20:39:38 PST." Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:07:33 +0100 Message-ID: <3041.913626453@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I'm still waiting for the src, docs and the license for that stuff, you promised to send it to me long time ago :-) Poul-Henning In message , Julian Elischer writes: >how about porting the whole shebang to whistle's 'streams' >replacement.. >we could probably supply the frame relay and ppp packetizer nodes along >with the framework and tools... >s > > >On Sun, 13 Dec 1998, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> >> I think I have finally found out what the problem is with the state >> machine in the if_sppp implementation. Whoever wrote the implementation >> didn't carefully consider the inter-layer calls tls and tlf. >> >> If one applies a lot of patches like this one: >> >> case STATE_OPENED: >> - (cp->tld)(sp); >> sp->rst_counter[cp->protoidx] = 0; >> sppp_cp_change_state(cp, sp, STATE_STOPPING); >> + (cp->tld)(sp); >> goto sta; >> break; >> >> Then things actually start to make sense... >> >> The problem is that the tld and tlf functions often just call the >> pp_up and pp_down routines directly, and therefore most if not all >> of the expected up and down events happen in the previous state >> as opposed to the next state. >> >> Flipping it around like I have done above, on the other hand, may >> not be a good idea either, since it means we can nest another layer >> on the stack and get somewhat confused on the way down. >> >> It is quite obvious that this will need some more work to sort out, >> anybody interested in participating ? >> >> >> -- >> Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member >> phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." >> "ttyv0" -- What UNIX calls a $20K state-of-the-art, 3D, hi-res color terminal >> >> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >> with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message >> > > -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." "ttyv0" -- What UNIX calls a $20K state-of-the-art, 3D, hi-res color terminal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message