Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 11:03:14 +1100 From: Antony Mawer <fbsd-arch@mawer.org> To: Bruce M Simpson <bms@spc.org> Cc: delphij@freebsd.org, Xin LI <delphij@gmail.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH FOR REVIEW] kqueue'ify inetd(8) and several other cleanups Message-ID: <43753142.7060002@mawer.org> In-Reply-To: <20051111140424.GB733@empiric.icir.org> References: <a78074950511091943v5cc5c701p5b977630c84d35a8@mail.gmail.com> <20051110172650.Q48388@mp2.macomnet.net> <20051110204849.GC775@funkthat.com> <20051111140424.GB733@empiric.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/11/2005 1:04 AM, Bruce M Simpson wrote: > I'm ambivalent about the change. On one hand, more exposure for kqueue > considered a good thing. On the other, this means change in inetd which > causes it to deviate from common BSD -- although I think we're happy for > inetd to deviate because we already have special cases for IPSEC in there, > which is actually quite cool. While on the topic of inetd and deviating from the other BSDs, I noticed when playing with pf that OpenBSD has the ability to bind services to specific interfaces in the inetd.conf file. Is there any interest in bringing this capability across to the FreeBSD inetd? I noticed the OpenBSD PR database suggests this came from NetBSD: http://cvs.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/query-pr-wrapper?numbers=175&full=yes >>Fix: > re-import the code from NetBSD or elsewhere. Though I haven't delved into this further. Is anyone else interested in seeing this imported? If no one else takes up the challenge I might have a look in a couple of weeks time, although at the moment I'm suffering from ENOTIME. Cheers Antony
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43753142.7060002>