On 02-Nov-00 Marcel Moolenaar 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to