From owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Mar  6 08:00:41 2015
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89949FB6
 for <freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org>; Fri,  6 Mar 2015 08:00:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FE87F34
 for <freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org>; Fri,  6 Mar 2015 08:00:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118])
 by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t2680fZ1081303
 for <freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 08:00:41 GMT
 (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org)
From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To: freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org
Subject: [Bug 187203] [hyper-v] CARP protocol not work on HYPER-V 2012 R2
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 08:00:41 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System
X-Bugzilla-Component: kern
X-Bugzilla-Version: unspecified
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me
X-Bugzilla-Who: delphij@FreeBSD.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: In Progress
X-Bugzilla-Priority: Normal
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-187203-4075-Sl7Sv3F2oe@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-187203-4075@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-187203-4075@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Development of Emulators of other operating systems
 <freebsd-emulation.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-emulation>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-emulation-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-emulation/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-emulation-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-emulation>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-emulation-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 08:00:41 -0000

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187203

--- Comment #7 from Xin LI <delphij@FreeBSD.org> ---
(In reply to andy zhang from comment #6)
Hi,

Is there a specific use case for the possible issue if SIOCGIFADDR is not
handled there?  Actually this is a follow up of changeset 277103 [1] which is
review request D1508 [2] and you may find additional information there.

My main reasoning is that the SIOCGIFADDR (get interface address) is used to
"observe" the interface object, or a "get" accessor, and semantically it
shouldn't bump the interface, like triggering an ARP broadcast, etc. like
SIOCSIFADDR (set interface address) does.  If we do it for SIOCGIFADDR too,
there may be some undesired behavior (e.g. an 'ifconfig' would cause the
interface to announce its IP address).

We can indeed add it back if there is good reason to do so, but I haven't yet
see one...

[1]
https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/sys/dev/xen/netfront/netfront.c?r1=276750&r2=277103

[2] https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1508

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.