Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:55:56 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, csg@waterspout.com, ache@freebsd.org, wpaul@freebsd.org, imp@village.org Subject: Re: ether_ifattach()/ether_ifdetach() patch Message-ID: <396BB40C.41C67EA6@elischer.org> References: <200007112346.QAA41027@bubba.whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Archie Cobbs wrote: > > Julian Elischer writes: > > > To any interested parties, here is a patch to review. > > > > > > This changes all ethernet drivers to only call ether_ifattach() > > > and ether_ifdetach(), consolidating some common actions, namely, > > > calls to if_attach(), bpfattach(), ng_ether_attach(), if_detach(), > > > bpfdetach(), and ng_ether_detach(). > > > > > > This also fixes the problem where detaching an ethernet interface > > > previously used for ng_ether(4) would panic (which resulted from > > > fixing the build to not require 'device ether' (which resulted > > > from making ng_ether(4) a loadable KLD)). > > > > > > ftp://ftp.whistle.com/pub/archie/misc/ETHERATTACH.patch.1 > > > > The constant 1 (2nd argument to ether_attach) should be > > defined as something meaningful in the ethernet include file. > > e.g. USE_BPF vs NO_BPF > > Thanks for the comment.. here's a revised version: > > ftp://ftp.whistle.com/pub/archie/misc/ETHERATTACH.patch.2 ok so you use ETHER_BPF_SUPPORTED... but I never saw a case where it was not supported.. why is it needed? > > -Archie > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com -- __--_|\ Julian Elischer / \ julian@elischer.org ( OZ ) World tour 2000 ;_.---._/ presently in: Budapest v To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?396BB40C.41C67EA6>