In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dima Dorfman write
s:
>Brian Somers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This looks good. I'd say you should commit the change yourself -
>> feel free to say it's reviewed by me.
>
>I'm not a src/ committer.. :-/
If you have a "reviewed by" an old hand like Brian, then
Brian Somers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This looks good. I'd say you should commit the change yourself -
> feel free to say it's reviewed by me.
I'm not a src/ committer.. :-/
> As an aside, when I did this to if_tun, I chose to do all the
> destroy_dev()s at module unload time (I guess th
This looks good. I'd say you should commit the change yourself -
feel free to say it's reviewed by me.
As an aside, when I did this to if_tun, I chose to do all the
destroy_dev()s at module unload time (I guess the snp device could do
with a MODULE_DECLARE). This allows the administrator to
Brian Somers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I haven't actually tested the code, but looking at the patch, I think
> there's a problem with it...
>
> Specifically, on a non-devfs system - where the device nodes are
> created with mknod(1), snp_clone() isn't going to be called before
> snpopen().
I haven't actually tested the code, but looking at the patch, I think
there's a problem with it...
Specifically, on a non-devfs system - where the device nodes are
created with mknod(1), snp_clone() isn't going to be called before
snpopen().
I've (ab)used drv2 as a flag to say whether make_de
Attached is a patch to make the snp(4) driver play ball with DEVFS.
For better or for worse, I used the bpf(4) driver as a guide on how to
do this.
If someone could review this, and, if nothing is wrong with it, commit
it, I'd appreciate it.
Thanks in advance,
6 matches
Mail list logo
