From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Aug 6 13:29:21 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from bubba.whistle.com (bubba.whistle.com [207.76.205.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 640D637B9A2 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 13:29:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from archie@whistle.com) Received: (from archie@localhost) by bubba.whistle.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04330; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 13:28:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from archie) From: Archie Cobbs Message-Id: <200008062028.NAA04330@bubba.whistle.com> Subject: Re: ether_ifattach() issue In-Reply-To: <20000806220611.A89046@mithrandr.moria.org> from Neil Blakey-Milner at "Aug 6, 2000 10:06:12 pm" To: Neil Blakey-Milner Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 13:28:07 -0700 (PDT) Cc: dennis@etinc.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL68 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Neil Blakey-Milner writes: > > No interface should be attached twice, Ethernet or other, right? > > So try this patch and find out which driver is broken. > > I think the concern was because the semantics to attach devices changed, > meaning that drivers from before no longer work. Hmm.. my understanding was that it was never OK to attach the same interface twice (without detaching in between). So if this behavior worked before then it was just "luck". In any case, IMHO in the future it doesn't make sense to allow an interface to attach twice... what would that mean anyway? Admittedly there may be a backward compatibility problem, but it seems like the origin of the problem is in the driver, not the ether_attach() routine. -Archie ___________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message