DragonFly BSD
DragonFly commits List (threaded) for 2005-05
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/i386 nexus.c src/sys/i386/include atomic.h src/sys/kern kern_poll.c lwkt_serialize.c src/sys/net if.c if_var.h rtsock.c src/sbin/ifconfig ifconfig.c src/sys/dev/netif/dc if_dc.c src/sys/dev/netif/em if_em.c if_em.h ...

From: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 16:34:32 +0200
Mail-followup-to: commits@crater.dragonflybsd.org

On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 03:25:56AM +0100, Hiten Pandya wrote:
> I have got half a bottle of whiskey (Grants) down me, but lets make this
> clear.  The if_capabilities should only tell what the interface CAN and
> will support; nothing else.
> The 'if_flags' field should note as to whether which of the capabilities
> have been turned on.  Lets just keep it simple and non-argumentative guys.

Just to avoid any further confusing, I agree on the meaning of both
variables. My problem results from the existence of situations where
"desired capabilities" != "active capabilities". I tried to explain
that removing to first and only using the second makes the interface
more fragile because it enforces a much stricter order and protection.
It also prevents optimisations.


[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]