Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:24:35 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: nate@root.org Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc/defaults rc.conf src/etc/rc.d dhclient Message-ID: <20030728.222435.111545905.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20030728210833.P53955@root.org> References: <20030728142857.A41136@cvs.imp.ch> <20030729030426.GD8471@dragon.nuxi.com> <20030728210833.P53955@root.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20030728210833.P53955@root.org>
Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> writes:
: On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, David O'Brien wrote:
: > On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 02:34:03PM +0200, Martin Blapp wrote:
: > > The problem here is that a box not connected to lan with dhcp hangs till
: > > you press CTRL C.
: >
: > So? That is how DHCP works. I added the "-1" option so it will time
: > out. Experience using SuSE which does background its dhcp client, I
: > think this change is a mistake. Please back that part out.
:
: I agree that always backgrounding the client provides some more
: complicated boot serialization and is not always desirable. However, I
: don't see any reason why if there is no link dhclient should not
: immediately go into the background or terminate if that makes you happier.
: There is no timeout that is correct for "no link".
Because it takes some small delta for the link to come up for many
interfaces. The link is usually brought up as part of dhclient's
processing. If you don't allow at least a small delta of time to pass
before declaring no link, then you'll find that you have lots of
issues as if you'd just kicked dhclient into the background.
With these changes, I'll be able to plug my minipci card back into my
dell :-)
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030728.222435.111545905.imp>