From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Dec 10 18:28:28 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA19551
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 18:28:28 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers)
Received: from implode.root.com (implode.root.com [198.145.90.17])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA19539
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 18:28:19 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from root@implode.root.com)
Received: from implode.root.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by implode.root.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA14274;
	Wed, 10 Dec 1997 18:31:34 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199712110231.SAA14274@implode.root.com>
To: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu>
cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject: Re: merge bpfattach into if_attach... 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 10 Dec 1997 16:46:19 PST."
             <19971210164619.03585@hydrogen.nike.efn.org> 
From: David Greenman <dg@root.com>
Reply-To: dg@root.com
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 18:31:34 -0800
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>#if NBPFILTER > 0
>                bpfattach(&sc->sc_if, DLT_SLIP, SLIP_HDRLEN);
>#endif
>
>and just before that code is a call to if_attach...  is there any
>problem by merging these two together?  and then in if_attach if

   Oh, and one more comment, doing the above would require an internal change
to the way if_attach is called in all of the device drivers so that the
information about the link layer header size and interface speed/type can be
passed in. I think that is a bad idea - for one thing, it breaks compatibility
with third party drivers.

-DG

David Greenman
Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project