From owner-freebsd-net  Sat Mar 10 14:31:53 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 618)
	id 6EF1237B718; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 14:31:50 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: call for testers: port aggregation netgraph module
In-Reply-To: <200103102137.f2ALbmC04064@aslan.scsiguy.com> from "Justin T. Gibbs" at "Mar 10, 2001 02:37:48 pm"
To: gibbs@scsiguy.com (Justin T. Gibbs)
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 14:31:50 -0800 (PST)
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, net@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20010310223150.6EF1237B718@hub.freebsd.org>
From: wpaul@FreeBSD.ORG (Bill Paul)
Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

> >> >Each link is checked once every second to see if the link is still up.
> >> >An attempt to send a packet over a dead link will cause the packet to
> >> >be shifted over to the next link in the bundle.
> >> 
> >> Any chance this can be done through an async event rather
> >> than by polling?
> >
> >If there was, I would have done it.
> 
> Perhaps it would be best to create an interface that allows async
> notification but to provide a default implementation of the interface
> that polls?  This would allow hardware that has a mechanism to detect
> the state change to override the default method while all other
> cards "just work" without modification by polling.

Perhaps somebody who is not me should investigate this then.

-Bill

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message