On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:16:23 +0200 (CEST)
Bartłomiej Rutkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Bartłomiej Rutkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Norberto Meijome <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Possible devd bug
> Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:16:23 +0200 (CEST)
> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.0 (GTK+ 2.10.12; i386-portbld-freebsd6.2)

Please keep the list in CC.

> Well, I can confirm right now, that devd does not trigger, when you put eth 
> interface into
> DOWN state by "#ifconfig ifnameX down". Now, is that intentional behaviour or 
> a bug? 

well..i never expected devd to trigger a LINK_DOWN or UP event when one issues
an ifconfig down. The meanings are different - link up or down means the
physical layer, ifconfig [nic] up/down means 'enable the card in the OS' or, as
the man page puts it :

[...]
     down    Mark an interface ``down''.  When an interface is marked
             ``down'', the system will not attempt to transmit messages
             through that interface.  If possible, the interface will be reset
             to disable reception as well.  .

[...]
     up      Mark an interface ``up''.  This may be used to enable an inter-
             face after an ``ifconfig down''.  
[...]

---
you can have a card up or down, with or not link - they are independent. Either
link or interface down means you cannot transmit via it, but for different
reasons.

> This 
> makes those LINK_UP devd triggers totally unusable.

no, it makes them perfectly usable for the  intended objectives of devd :)

B
_________________________
{Beto|Norberto|Numard} Meijome

Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on ours.

I speak for myself, not my employer. Contents may be hot. Slippery when wet.
Reading disclaimers makes you go blind. Writing them is worse. You have been
Warned.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to