Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:46:48 -0700 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> To: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: option directive and turning on AOE Message-ID: <20040831204648.GC25134@odin.ac.hmc.edu> In-Reply-To: <4134E258.4060903@freebsd.org> References: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0408311611550.7530@athena> <4134DF35.7070605@freebsd.org> <20040831203929.GB25134@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <4134E258.4060903@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--PuGuTyElPB9bOcsM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 02:40:56PM -0600, Scott Long wrote: > Brooks Davis wrote: >=20 > >On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 02:27:33PM -0600, Scott Long wrote: > > > >>Sam wrote: > >> > >> > >>>I've added code to if_ethersubr.c:/ether_demux/ > >>>to queue up AoE frames as they appear. I followed > >>>suit with other protocols and included my addition > >>>inside of an #ifdef AOE. Where do I turn this on? > >>>I thought perhaps just adding an 'option AOE' to > >>>the config would do it, but it doesn't -- so clearly > >>>I don't understand how the option directive works. > >>>The config man page doesn't talk about option/device > >>>directives ... > >>> > >>>I'm still looking, but a clue would be well received. > >> > >>Did you modify /sys/conf/options to tell it about your > >>AOE option? If so, then you should have specified the name > >>of a header file that the option would be #define'd into. > >>Include that header file in if_ethersubr.c and you should > >>have no problems. > >> > >>Incidentally, this might be an area when netgraph would be > >>useful. Instead of having an AoE specific hook in the > >>stack, you could have an AoE netgraph module that uses the > >>existing netgraph hooks. It's just an idea, though. > > > > > >Another option might be a PFIL hook. There isn't one there now, but I > >think I've seen talk of adding one. Actually, if we did that, we could > >get most of the netgraph specific hooks out of the ethernet code. >=20 > Do the PFIL hooks exist in 4.x? I know that he's trying to target > his driver for that right now. Netgraph exists in both, so using it > would keep his code more portable. Anyways, this isn't my area of > expertise, so do whatever you find to be best. No, it doesn't look like pfil hooks are in 4.x. If we had a new service that wanted to use them in there, we could probably MFC them without converting existing services making it a fairly low-risk operation. Using netgraph is probably the easiest solution though. -- Brooks --=20 Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 --PuGuTyElPB9bOcsM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBNOO3XY6L6fI4GtQRAv9mAKC8WekMkgJ/Xb8pgdqtdH1Q/JM3HwCfeW0U pWCTq94ssN3rPsR6LGyk+Bs= =ePiK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --PuGuTyElPB9bOcsM--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040831204648.GC25134>