Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:45:41 +0000 (UTC) From: Tor Egge <Tor.Egge@cvsup.no.freebsd.org> To: julian@elischer.org Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, julian@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r195862 - head/sys/netinet/ipfw Message-ID: <20090728.184541.41675682.Tor.Egge@cvsup.no.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4A6F3E4D.3050803@elischer.org> References: <200907250642.n6P6ggKw032784@svn.freebsd.org> <20090728.170954.74706437.Tor.Egge@cvsup.no.freebsd.org> <4A6F3E4D.3050803@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> ok I wonder where the "right" place to add it is.. probably keep it > at SI_SUB_PROTO_IFATTACHDOMAIN, SI_ORDER_ANY - 256. > > an you check if that fixes it? possibly moving the 256 to 255? That depends on the wanted order between ipfw_init() and vnet_ipfw_init(). Using (SI_SUB_PROTO_IFATTACHDOMAIN, SI_ORDER_ANY - 256) makes the order undefined. Changing the VNET_SYS*INIT() macro arguments in ip_fw2.c from (SI_SUB_KTHREAD_INIT, SI_ORDER_ANY) to (SI_SUB_PROTO_IFATTACHDOMAIN, SI_ORDER_ANY - 255) allows my laptop to boot. I'm not familiar with VIMAGE, and my laptop kernel does not have that option, so I don't know if that will interfere with the initialization order between vnet_ipfw_init() and other VIMAGE/vnet related initializations. - Tor Egge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090728.184541.41675682.Tor.Egge>