On Wednesday 14 Jul 2010 20:14:48 Piotr Jaroszy?ski wrote: > > <snip> > > > > You can then call activity_start() and activity_stop() at appropriate > > places (e.g. on creating/freeing a TCP connection or a TFTP connection; > > UDP-based protocols such as TFTP could also potentially benefit from > > waiting for a graceful shutdown). You can call activity_wait() from > > appropriate places such as immediately prior to imgexec() in > > usr/autoboot.c. > > One of those places would have to be in ifclose then, no? I like the > idea because it's more general, but on the other hand we might end up > with activity_wait in some places where we don't always need it (like > ifclosing a different interface than the one used by the activity). > Maybe it's not such a big deal though.
ifclose() is conceptually separate from netdev_close(), in that ifclose() represents a "user level" call that is allowed to call things like printf() and step(). It would in that sense be acceptable for ifclose() to call activity_wait() before calling netdev_close(). That said, you could argue that ifclose is equivalent to something like "ifconfig eth0 down" which would, I think, cause connections to terminate gracelessly in exactly the same way as currently happens with iPXE. Maybe usr/autoboot.c is the more natural place to fit calls to activity_wait()? Michael
