From owner-freebsd-current Thu Nov 2 12:33:58 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from pike.osd.bsdi.com (pike.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.28.222]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81D0337B4C5 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 12:33:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (john@dhcp241.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.28.241]) by pike.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.0/8.9.3) with ESMTP id eA2KU6I98723; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 12:30:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3A01C2BD.6595E911@cup.hp.com> Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 12:30:27 -0800 (PST) From: John Baldwin To: Marcel Moolenaar Subject: Re: WARNING: driver bpf should register devices with make_dev() Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, andrea@webcom.it Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 02-Nov-00 Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > andrea@webcom.it wrote: >> >> > I get it as well. IIRC, it simply means that the bpf pseudo device needs >> > to be updated, but is otherwise harmless. I forgot the details, but it's >> > all in the mailinglist archives. Somewhere... :-) >> >> Anybody handling this, or anybody can give pointers as to what needs to be >> done? > > I'm not aware someone is working on it. It doesn't look like it needs > much work, but I don't know the details as I said. For pointers: mail > archives. Quick question: Is this a problem for people _without_ DEVFS? Poul may have accidentally broke calling make_dev for the bpf device in the non-DEVFS case. Try this hackish patch: Index: bpf.c =================================================================== RCS file: /usr/cvs/src/sys/net/bpf.c,v retrieving revision 1.68 diff -u -r1.68 bpf.c --- bpf.c 2000/10/09 14:19:09 1.68 +++ bpf.c 2000/11/02 20:26:09 @@ -363,7 +363,7 @@ */ if (d) return (EBUSY); - if (!dev->si_flags & SI_NAMED) + if (!devfs_present) make_dev(&bpf_cdevsw, minor(dev), UID_ROOT, GID_WHEEL, 0600, "bpf%d", dev2unit(dev)); MALLOC(d, struct bpf_d *, sizeof(*d), M_BPF, M_WAITOK); Hmm. Or try doing changing it to this instead: if (dev->si_flags & SI_NAMED != 0) It could be an order of operations buglet. -- John Baldwin -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message