From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Feb 12 16:19:41 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from sneakerz.org (sneakerz.org [216.33.66.254]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B517F37B402 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:19:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by sneakerz.org (Postfix, from userid 1023) id 4C0695D006; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 18:19:39 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 18:19:39 -0600 From: Maxime Henrion To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Cc: Brooks Davis Subject: Re: Patches to if_loop + the interface cloning framework Message-ID: <20020212181939.E25374@sneakerz.org> References: <20020212154828.A25374@sneakerz.org> <20020212143909.B24768@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> <20020212165544.B25374@sneakerz.org> <20020212153609.D24768@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> <20020212174453.C25374@sneakerz.org> <20020212155646.A26408@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> <20020212180337.D25374@sneakerz.org> <20020212161129.A29154@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20020212161129.A29154@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu>; from brooks@one-eyed-alien.net on Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 04:11:29PM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Brooks Davis (brooks@one-eyed-alien.net) wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 06:03:37PM -0600, Maxime Henrion wrote: > > Actually, after taking a closer look at it, there is no error checking > > that can be done in locreate(). It calls if_attach() and bpfattach() > > which are both void functions and calls malloc() with M_WAITOK. Were > > you talking about something else ? > > Oops, you are correct. For some reasion I though M_WAITOK sometimes > (rairly) failed, but according to the manpage I'm misremembering that > flamewar. In that case, your origional code was correct in that the > only way it can fail is if it already exists which isn't really a problem > (though it's probably worth a KASSERT since it would represent a bug.) > > > What would it be useful to, if the kernel can't link without it ? > > The linking problem would be a fairly trivial fix. You would just have > to move the definition elsewhere like I did with the external interfaces > to faith(4). The underlying "specialness" of the loopback is another > issue though and I'm not sure what the answer is. That doesn't mean > there isn't one though and I don't see any reasion why we should go out > of our way to remove support for the loopback device as a module. Got you on that one. :-) I uploaded the final patch (with a KASSERT) still at the same location, http://www.sneakerz.org/~mux/net.diff. Cheers, Maxime Henrion To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message