Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 16:08:00 -0400 From: Michael Butler <imb@protected-networks.net> To: Marek Zarychta <zarychtam@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl>, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: epair(4) Message-ID: <932111f8-f5ca-46d1-9f66-983f80f6116b@protected-networks.net> In-Reply-To: <aCeXdxeeWQs_Sz77@ragweed.eden.le-fay.org> References: <20250515162552.9209B20E@slippy.cwsent.com> <20250515185919.87008219@slippy.cwsent.com> <45d0f49d-229b-46b4-af95-6e8c4c856661@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl> <aCeXdxeeWQs_Sz77@ragweed.eden.le-fay.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 5/16/25 15:52, Lexi Winter wrote: > i don't really want to add a kernel message here for something that only > affects a small percentage of users, unlike net.add_addr_allfibs which > affected everyone who uses multiple fibs. That "small percentage" includes most folk currently using jails and/or bhyve (via sysutils/vm-bhyve). If, as the bridge(4) man page suggests, the sysctl "goes away" in 16+, we'll need some other mechanism to interconnect these. It cannot simply "go away" without offering a solution. Any pointers? Michaelhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?932111f8-f5ca-46d1-9f66-983f80f6116b>