Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 13:24:57 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: Toshihiko ARAI <toshi@jp.FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [PATCH] pccard_ether and removable_* variables Message-ID: <15253.10889.977127.513674@nomad.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <200109011153.f81BrZL93078.toshi@jp.FreeBSD.org> References: <15245.13394.275183.61715@nomad.yogotech.com> <200109011153.f81BrZL93078.toshi@jp.FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I ask for a review of the following patches. > > A summary of a patch, > > * Delete removable_interfaces and pccard_ifconfig. However, > pccard_ifconfig is kept for compatibility in pccard_ether. > * Documentation of removable_route_flush and static_routes_<interface>. > * Modification of sysinstall, deleted a pccard_ifconfig, added > some entry to a menu, and some corrections. > > http://home.jp.FreeBSD.org/~toshi/pccard-current-20010901.diff What's the purpose of the following lines of code: # Clean the routing table case ${removable_route_flush} in - [Nn][Oo]) + [Nn][Oo] | '') ;; *) - # flush beforehand, just in case.... - route -n flush -inet + case ${gateway_enable} in + [Yy][Ee][Ss]) + ;; + *) + route -n flush -inet + ;; + esac ;; esac ;; In particular, why don't we flush the routing table if gateway_enable is set? That's seems counter-productive. Also, as I've mentioned before, is there anyway we can have the routes added via 'static_routes_<interface>' flushed when the interface is removed? This seems to be a step in the right direction, and may obviate the need for removable_route_flush completely. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-mobile" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15253.10889.977127.513674>