Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 14:33:33 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> To: Roman Kurakin <rik@cronyx.ru> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: netgraph(4) initialization order Message-ID: <41DC5D2D.8040308@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <41DC5910.8030905@cronyx.ru> 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> <41DC5690.3090205@freebsd.org> <41DC5910.8030905@cronyx.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Roman Kurakin wrote: > Scott Long: > >> 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? > > > But this wouldn't save from the same problem it the future. > > rik > What same problem? This ensures that the netgraph core gets initialized before any driver. Keeping it at SI_SUB_DRIVERS and trying to order the it via SI_ORDER_* is risky because you can't guarantee that some other driver won't try to also take SI_ORDER_FIRST. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41DC5D2D.8040308>