Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:55:44 -0600 From: Maxime Henrion <mux@sneakerz.org> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Cc: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Subject: Re: Patches to if_loop + the interface cloning framework Message-ID: <20020212165544.B25374@sneakerz.org> In-Reply-To: <20020212143909.B24768@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu>; from brooks@one-eyed-alien.net on Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 02:39:09PM -0800 References: <20020212154828.A25374@sneakerz.org> <20020212143909.B24768@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brooks Davis (brooks@one-eyed-alien.net) wrote: > By and large it looks good so far. I've got a couple minor issues > though. First, I think we should at least KASSERT and probably > just panic if lo_clone_create() failes in loop_modevent since that > causes the same problem as deleting lo0. I see your concern but this raises some other questions : if it is so bad that we have to panic if we're not be able to create the lo0 interface, then why do we have if_loop available as a module at all ? I'm all for having a KASSERT() or a panic() in that case, but I'd rather see it in a SYSINIT after having removed KLD support. > Also, if there are users of > the net.nloop out there, we may want to figure out a way to support them > in stable. It's always possiable that there aren't any users of > net.nloop and thus we don't need to worry, but I'd prefer to ask before > tossing support in stable. I've got no qualms about ripping in out in > current. Yes, I think it would be good to support net.nloop again in -STABLE. I can write another patch for this. Thanks, Maxime Henrion To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020212165544.B25374>