From owner-freebsd-current  Thu Nov  2 12:41:41 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from palrel3.hp.com (palrel3.hp.com [156.153.255.226])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 0FC6037B479; Thu,  2 Nov 2000 12:41:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from adlmail.cup.hp.com (adlmail.cup.hp.com [15.0.100.30])
	by palrel3.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 28858A0D1; Thu,  2 Nov 2000 12:41:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cup.hp.com (gauss.cup.hp.com [15.28.97.152])
	by adlmail.cup.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18546)/8.9.3 SMKit7.02) with ESMTP id MAA10393;
	Thu, 2 Nov 2000 12:41:11 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3A01D167.DB687DDB@cup.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 15:41:11 -0500
From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@cup.hp.com>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12 i386)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, andrea@webcom.it
Subject: Re: WARNING: driver bpf should register devices with make_dev()
References: <XFMail.001102123027.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

John Baldwin wrote:
> 
> Quick question: Is this a problem for people _without_ DEVFS? 

That's a yes for me.

> 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.

Give me a couple of days to play with it...

-- 
Marcel Moolenaar
  mail: marcel@cup.hp.com / marcel@FreeBSD.org
  tel:  (408) 447-4222


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message