> I object to these patches.
> the idea is good but these patches are misguided..

ok :) i did not say that is an ultimate solution :) i did
not even say that they are good :) the only idea behind 
these patches is to show that there is a _possible_ node 
reference problem :) that's it :)


> Ok, so the idea is that the actual underlying interface
> is going away, and that you want the node to go away too.
> The correct way is to signal to ng_ether_rmnode() that 
> it SHOULD remove the node.

may be it will be good to have destructor for node as well
as shutdown? since we know that node is doomed ng_rmnode will call
destructor. shutdown
will do just preparation, i.e. cut links etc. in this case it
will be possibe to shutdown node without deletion. and if
node should gone destructor will call shoudown and then
remove node.

>  At present this code assumes that the ethernet interface 
> is permenent, and that the ng_ether node should thus also 
> be persistant. What you need is a way for it to distinguish 
> between the case where it should not remove the node, and the case
> where the interface is doomed, and it should remove the node.
> A flag somewhere would suffice.

yes, it will work. i can flag node as doomed before calling
ng_ether_detach. but anyway i need to remove extra reference
in ng_name_node/ng_unname, otherwise ng_unfer won't 
destroy node :( there will be a lot of them. ng_ctl shows them


> Archie's changes (when he applies them)
> will give a clearer picture at to how this should be done.
> I suggest that you hold off until his patches are added because
> it will have an effect. It should be done any day now.

i will :) 


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to