Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:45:08 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: option directive and turning on AOE Message-ID: <4134FF74.4010105@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4134FCAE.7374599A@freebsd.org> References: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0408311611550.7530@athena> <4134DF35.7070605@freebsd.org> <20040831203929.GB25134@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <4134E4B6.2030409@elischer.org> <4134FCAE.7374599A@freebsd.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Andre Oppermann wrote: > Julian Elischer wrote: > >>Brooks Davis wrote: >> >> >>>On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 02:27:33PM -0600, Scott Long wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Sam wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>I've added code to if_ethersubr.c:/ether_demux/ >>>>>to queue up AoE frames as they appear. I followed >>>>>suit with other protocols and included my addition >>>>>inside of an #ifdef AOE. Where do I turn this on? >>>>>I thought perhaps just adding an 'option AOE' to >>>>>the config would do it, but it doesn't -- so clearly >>>>>I don't understand how the option directive works. >>>>>The config man page doesn't talk about option/device >>>>>directives ... >>>>> >>>>>I'm still looking, but a clue would be well received. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>Did you modify /sys/conf/options to tell it about your >>>>AOE option? If so, then you should have specified the name >>>>of a header file that the option would be #define'd into. >>>>Include that header file in if_ethersubr.c and you should >>>>have no problems. >>>> >>>>Incidentally, this might be an area when netgraph would be >>>>useful. Instead of having an AoE specific hook in the >>>>stack, you could have an AoE netgraph module that uses the >>>>existing netgraph hooks. It's just an idea, though. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>Another option might be a PFIL hook. There isn't one there now, but I >>>think I've seen talk of adding one. Actually, if we did that, we could >>>get most of the netgraph specific hooks out of the ethernet code. >>> >> >>or visa versa.. >>make pfil have a netgraph hook. then you could use it to filter all >>kinds of things in netgraph graphs. > > > Yea, a ng_pfilhook module should be fairly easy to write. I don't like > it the other way around. PFIL_HOOKS is a hooking mechanism, so something > should hook itself in there. > > PS: I'm thinking about moving all the IPSec cruft in IPv4 into a pfil > hook. Thus IPSecKAME and FastIPSec could be loadable modules and it > would relieve ip_input/output.c by some more 1000's of lines. Haven't > looked fully into it yet though. I'm sure there are some difficulties > hidden somewhere. ;-) > Having a single common interface is definitely attractive, but there are performance and locking issues with the Netgraph framework that should probably be resolved first. Scotthome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4134FF74.4010105>