From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 27 07:18:56 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4432916A41F; Thu, 27 Oct 2005 07:18:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from yar@comp.chem.msu.su) Received: from comp.chem.msu.su (comp.chem.msu.su [158.250.32.97]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 659A043D45; Thu, 27 Oct 2005 07:18:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from yar@comp.chem.msu.su) Received: from comp.chem.msu.su (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by comp.chem.msu.su (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j9R7IriF007614; Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:18:53 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from yar@comp.chem.msu.su) Received: (from yar@localhost) by comp.chem.msu.su (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id j9R7IrQp007613; Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:18:53 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from yar) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:18:53 +0400 From: Yar Tikhiy To: Max Laier Message-ID: <20051027071852.GB6598@comp.chem.msu.su> References: <200510260557.j9Q5vZ7J076711@repoman.freebsd.org> <20051026093536.GF41520@cell.sick.ru> <20051026105820.X32255@fledge.watson.org> <200510261416.09346.max@love2party.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200510261416.09346.max@love2party.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, Gleb Smirnoff , Robert Watson , src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet ip_carp.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 07:18:56 -0000 On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 02:15:47PM +0200, Max Laier wrote: > On Wednesday 26 October 2005 11:58, Robert Watson wrote: > > On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 10:15:09AM +0100, Robert Watson wrote: > > > R> I think we may actually be in need of either a new flag, > > > R> IFF_OKSODONTTREATTHISQUITELIKEANINTERFACE, or maybe a more reliable > > > way R> for protocols to ask if an interface is a loopback interface or > > > not. > > > > > > I'd prefer to rewrite those subsystems that use interface layer but > > > aren't actually interfaces. I have plans to do this for CARP. > > > > At least in the case of if_disc, this won't help. I'm not quite sure why > > if_disc is IFF_LOOPBACK. > > Sad answer seems to be: copy and paste. IFF_LOOPBACK is part of 1.1 which > also contains the following comment: > > /* > * Discard interface driver for protocol testing and timing. > * (Based on the loopback.) > */ > > So it might be a good idea to get rid of it and work from there. During simple comparative testing of if_disc with and without IFF_LOOPBACK I failed to notice any difference. Would anybody object to just dropping IFF_LOOPBACK from if_disc flags? -- Yar