From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 7 18:02:05 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14BA616A4CE for ; Tue, 7 Dec 2004 18:02:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from outbound0.sv.meer.net (outbound0.sv.meer.net [205.217.152.13]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED0C543D5D for ; Tue, 7 Dec 2004 18:02:04 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnn@neville-neil.com) Received: from mail.meer.net (mail.meer.net [209.157.152.14]) iB7I1jwR022028; Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:02:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnn@neville-neil.com) Received: from minion.local.neville-neil.com (h229.neville-neil.com [209.157.133.229] (may be forged)) by mail.meer.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/meer) with ESMTP id iB7I1X7j027574; Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:01:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnn@neville-neil.com) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 10:01:30 -0800 Message-ID: From: gnn@FreeBSD.org To: Max Laier Sent-via: Max Laier Sent-via: freebsd-current@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <200412071539.50647.max@love2party.net> References: <200412071425.47840.max@love2party.net> <200412071539.50647.max@love2party.net> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.10.1 (Watching The Wheels) SEMI/1.14.5 (Awara-Onsen) FLIM/1.14.5 (Demachiyanagi) APEL/10.5 Emacs/21.2 (powerpc-apple-darwin) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.5 - "Awara-Onsen") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Protocol timer running before protocol init (Re: current panic igmp related ?) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 18:02:05 -0000 At Tue, 7 Dec 2004 15:39:40 +0100, Max Laier wrote: > Actually, that will only help in the debug.mpsafenet=0 case. A better fix is > to initialize first and hook into the array afterwards - not sure if that is > a safe thing to do for all protocols. I'm not sure how safe it is for IPv6, I just went and glanced at the code, but perhaps we should just force this anyways, as it's the "right thing to do." Later, George