Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 14:05:20 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> To: Maksim Yevmenkin <maksim.yevmenkin@savvis.net> Cc: Roman Kurakin <rik@cronyx.ru> Subject: Re: netgraph(4) initialization order Message-ID: <41DC5690.3090205@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <41DC5561.4090005@savvis.net> References: <41DB08B9.6090801@savvis.net> <41DB1310.4060807@cronyx.ru> <41DB1700.7060708@savvis.net> <41DB1839.9080104@elischer.org> <41DC4FA2.8070609@savvis.net> <41DC5398.8020508@freebsd.org> <41DC5561.4090005@savvis.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Maksim Yevmenkin wrote: > Scott Long wrote: > >> Maksim Yevmenkin wrote: >> >>> Dear Hackers, >>> >>> any objections to the attached patch? >>> >> >> Yes, as I stated in another email, I think that the core netgraph >> module should be initialized before the SI_SUB_DRIVERS step. I >> propose creating a new sysinit called SI_SUB_NETGRAPH with a value >> of 0x30100000. That way it comes after SI_SUB_IF and before >> SI_SUB_DRIVERS. This make fiddling with SI_ORDER_* unneccesary. > > > how about new attached patch? > > thanks, > max > Exactly what I had in mind =-) Have you tested this out to make sure it fixes the problem cases? Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41DC5690.3090205>