Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 13:34:22 -0800 From: Maksim Yevmenkin <maksim.yevmenkin@savvis.net> To: Roman Kurakin <rik@cronyx.ru> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: netgraph(4) initialization order Message-ID: <41DC5D5E.3060104@savvis.net> In-Reply-To: <41DC5910.8030905@cronyx.ru> References: <41DB08B9.6090801@savvis.net> <41DB1310.4060807@cronyx.ru> <41DB1700.7060708@savvis.net> <41DB1839.9080104@elischer.org> <41DC4FA2.8070609@savvis.net> <41DC5398.8020508@freebsd.org> <41DC5561.4090005@savvis.net> <41DC5690.3090205@freebsd.org> <41DC5910.8030905@cronyx.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[...] >>>> Yes, as I stated in another email, I think that the core >>>> netgraph module should be initialized before the SI_SUB_DRIVERS >>>> step. I propose creating a new sysinit called SI_SUB_NETGRAPH >>>> with a value of 0x30100000. That way it comes after SI_SUB_IF >>>> and before SI_SUB_DRIVERS. This make fiddling with SI_ORDER_* >>>> unneccesary. >>> >>> how about new attached patch? >> >> Exactly what I had in mind =-) Have you tested this out to make >> sure it fixes the problem cases? > > But this wouldn't save from the same problem it the future. well, yes. if you put something that depends on netgraph before or at the same level. i'll just say "don't do it. it hurtzzz when you press here" :) max
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41DC5D5E.3060104>