On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 08:54:11 -0400
"Anurag S. Maskey" <Anurag.Maskey at Sun.COM> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
I don't agree with 9431. If we "should not" unplumb in this spot then
we shouldn't be unplumb'ng in a lot of the other places we do so.
> If we are being aggressive, then we should
> call fini for enms and locs also.
Okay. I'll add that.
> And if that is the case, then all
> finis should move inside nwamd_refresh().
I'd like to see this ultimately not happen so I don't think they should
be moved inside of nwamd_refresh().
>
> With this fini we are reverting our changes. We should find out why bug
> 9431 was filed in the first place.
You filed and fixed the bug. Fill us in :)
>
> > 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.
Okay.
mph
>
> Anurag
>
