Hi all,
the following problem occured just to me. Suppose the last lines in
my attach() function look something like:
if_attach(...)
bus_setup_intr(...)
Last time we had the locking discussion it was more or less the concensus,
that no locking is needed in attach() and that the
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 03:34:18PM -0500, J. W. Ballantine wrote:
>round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 3.022/3.428/5.029/0.801 ms
># ping 207.172.3.8<<< one of isp's name server
>PING 207.172.3.8 (207.172.3.8): 56 data bytes
>ping: sendto: Host is down
>p
So what you are saying is that with the:
route add -net default -iface -interface xl0
command the system thinks there is a direct connect. Doesn't this
then send all packets out, since there is no address supplied with
the route command, or is this a function the the 10.*.*.* addresses
are priv
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 09:51:46AM -0500, J. W. Ballantine wrote:
> So what you are saying is that with the:
>route add -net default -iface -interface xl0
> command the system thinks there is a direct connect. Doesn't this
> then send all packets out, since there is no address supplied with
>
-- In Response to your message -
> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:11:40 +0100
> To: "J. W. Ballantine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: Guido van Rooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: route pointing to a gateway that's not on net
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Fri, Ma
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:07:26PM -0500, J. W. Ballantine wrote:
> Quite frankly, blunt is not a problem, one needs to call them as one sees
> them. However, responding to a question with a condesending, superior
> attitude(IMHO), while ignoring the question is. As for "just try what
> people
-- In Response to your message -
> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 21:29:44 +0100
> To: "J. W. Ballantine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: Guido van Rooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: route pointing to a gateway that's not on net
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:07:26PM -0500
