cvs commit: src/sys/i386/i386 nexus.c src/sys/i386/include atomic.h src/sys/kern kern_poll.c lwkt_serialize.c src/sys/net if.c if_var.h rtsock.c src/sbin/ifconfig ifconfig.c src/sys/dev/netif/dc if_dc.c src/sys/dev/netif/em if_em.c if_em.h ...
joerg at britannica.bec.de
Mon May 30 07:36:16 PDT 2005
On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 03:25:56AM +0100, Hiten Pandya wrote:
> I have got half a bottle of whiskey (Grants) down me, but lets make this
> clear. The if_capabilities should only tell what the interface CAN and
> will support; nothing else.
> The 'if_flags' field should note as to whether which of the capabilities
> have been turned on. Lets just keep it simple and non-argumentative guys.
Just to avoid any further confusing, I agree on the meaning of both
variables. My problem results from the existence of situations where
"desired capabilities" != "active capabilities". I tried to explain
that removing to first and only using the second makes the interface
more fragile because it enforces a much stricter order and protection.
It also prevents optimisations.
More information about the Commits