>> >Each link is checked once every second to see if the link is still up. >> >An attempt to send a packet over a dead link will cause the packet to >> >be shifted over to the next link in the bundle. >> >> Any chance this can be done through an async event rather >> than by polling? > >If there was, I would have done it. Perhaps it would be best to create an interface that allows async notification but to provide a default implementation of the interface that polls? This would allow hardware that has a mechanism to detect the state change to override the default method while all other cards "just work" without modification by polling. -- Justin To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
- Re: call for testers: port aggregation n... Louis A. Mamakos
- Re: call for testers: port aggregation n... Chris Dillon
- Re: call for testers: port aggregat... Lyndon Nerenberg
- Re: call for testers: port aggr... Lyndon Nerenberg
- Re: call for testers: port aggregation n... Bill Paul
- Re: call for testers: port aggregation netgraph module Julian Elischer
- Re: call for testers: port aggregation netgraph module Archie Cobbs
- Re: call for testers: port aggregation netgraph module Justin T. Gibbs
- Re: call for testers: port aggregation netgraph module Julian Elischer
- Re: call for testers: port aggregation netgraph module Julian Elischer
- Re: call for testers: port aggregation netgraph module Archie Cobbs
- RE: call for testers: port aggregation netgraph module Peter Blok