Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 10:25:39 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: brooks@one-eyed-alien.net Cc: yar@comp.chem.msu.su, src-committers@freebsd.org, rwatson@freebsd.org, julian@elischer.org, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/net if_vlan.c Message-ID: <20060704.102539.-494099438.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20060703202803.GA22556@odin.ac.hmc.edu> References: <44A40C25.904@elischer.org> <20060630115749.G3964@fledge.watson.org> <20060703202803.GA22556@odin.ac.hmc.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20060703202803.GA22556@odin.ac.hmc.edu>
Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> writes:
: and act as though the interface is not there. We could then consider
: either holding the interface for a configurable or computed length
: of time or adding some sort of refcounting (probably impractical).
Refcounting would be good for the 'macro' things (coming and going)
that are infrequent, but we might have mulitple people doing. You are
right it likely is too inefficient to do with mbugs. One other option
might be to have a configurable time after the last time that it was
accessed via the 'safe' routines that were setup. This way we'd tie
the removal of the interface to a period of time after it was last
used, rather than after it was removed. I don't know if such a
difference would matter much in practice.
The only other 'issue' that I see with this approach is if I remove a
card, and then insert it again before the timeout happens. Does that
card get a new interface name? And would people care or not...
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060704.102539.-494099438.imp>