Michael Hunter wrote: > On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 08:21:09 -0400 > "Anurag S. Maskey" <Anurag.Maskey at Sun.COM> wrote: > > >> On SIGHUP, do we really want to nwamd_fini_ncus()? This resets >> everything for the NCUs and restarts all the state machines. I remember >> discussing this earlier and we decided that it was not necessary to tear >> down everything with fini on SIGHUP. >> > > I think conceptually SIGTHAW and SIGHUP should be the same. For this > push I'd prefer to be overly aggressive. I think it is a good RFE to > not be as aggressive with bringing up/down network objects (esp. > interfaces). This isn't the only place that would be effected. > bug 9431 removed this fini. If we are being aggressive, then we should call fini for enms and locs also. And if that is the case, then all finis should move inside nwamd_refresh().
With this fini we are reverting our changes. We should find out why bug 9431 was filed in the first place. > I also think that we would be leaking objects if we don't. But that > could be fixed separately if we want. > Objects are not leaked if we don't fini them. The _handle_init_event() code reads in new objects and frees the old objects. If that's not happening, then bugs should be filed. Anurag
