Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 21:17:25 +0200 From: Marko Zec <zec@icir.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 119444 for review Message-ID: <200705082117.25633.zec@icir.org> In-Reply-To: <4640C835.4050502@elischer.org> References: <200705072252.l47Mq4xX044896@repoman.freebsd.org> <200705080755.36056.zec@icir.org> <4640C835.4050502@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 08 May 2007 20:57:57 Julian Elischer wrote: > Marko Zec wrote: > > On Tuesday 08 May 2007 02:04:30 Julian Elischer wrote: > >> Marko Zec wrote: > >>> On Tuesday 08 May 2007 01:22:59 Julian Elischer wrote: > >>>> Marko Zec wrote: > >>>>> http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=119444 > >>>>> > >>>>> Change 119444 by zec@zec_tpx32 on 2007/05/07 22:51:07 > >>>>> > >>>>> Add support for free-floating ng_hub and ng_bridge instances. > >>>>> > >>>>> If a hook named "anchor" is created on a ng_hub or ng_bridge > >>>>> node instance, the node will not self-destruct even if it > >>>>> has no hooks connected. Reminder: normal behavior is that > >>>>> hub or bridge nodes automatically destroy themselves when > >>>>> the last hook is disconnected. > >>>> > >>>> What is this hook attached to? > >>>> One could just as easily send them a 'become persistant' > >>>> message.. It would be a good candidate for a generic message. > >>>> Data is still sent to this hook. is that what is expected? > >>> > >>> This hook should typically disappear right after it is created, > >>> if we use it like this: > >>> > >>> tpx32# ngctl mkpeer hub anchor anchor > >>> tpx32# ngctl l > >>> There are 3 total nodes: > >>> Name: ngctl69865 Type: socket ID: 0000040d Num hooks: 0 > >>> Name: <unnamed> Type: hub ID: 0000040b Num hooks: 0 > >>> Name: em0 Type: ether ID: 00000004 Num hooks: 0 > >>> > >>> Yes, the only purpose of this is to pin-up the node. We cannot > >>> send a 'become persistant' message to a node that doesn't > >>> exist... Or do you have an alternative suggestion to achieve this > >>> functionality? I really need this badly for IMUNES... > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Marko > >> > >> there is a hook when you create it.. you send it the message, then > >> you can remove the hook. > > > > I'd be sold on the concept you propose if I had an idea how to use > > it from non-interactive scripts in a reasonably simple way. For > > example: > > > > tpx32# ngctl -f - > > mkpeer hub x x > > list > > # XXX what now? Send "pin-up" message to which node? > > > > There are 3 total nodes: > > Name: <unnamed> Type: hub ID: 00000429 Num hooks: 1 > > Name: ngctl93546 Type: socket ID: 00000428 Num hooks: 1 > > Name: em0 Type: ether ID: 00000004 Num hooks: 0 > > msg .:x pin {value=1} Bingo - yup this should / must work! Thanks!!! Marko > > My point is that even if we don't close the controlling socket (we > > remain in ngctl) so that we don't loose the newly created node > > right away, how can we at this point know the address of the new > > node without going through some woodo magic style parsing of the > > output from currently running ngctl process, and then feeding the > > result back to its standard input? > > > > Marko
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200705082117.25633.zec>