If memory serves me right, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 01:05:39PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: > ... > > > On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Andrew Thompson wrote: > > >>Hi, > > >>I have ported over the bridging code from NetBSD and am looking for feedb > ack. > > >>My main question is, 'do people want this in the tree?' > ... > > This if_bridge would replace the current bridge(4) code. It doesn't make > > >From the diff it seems not to interfere at all with the existing > bridge(4) code, so both can coexist in the tree and people use what > they prefer with the appropriate kernel config option, or even > kld-ed module. This probably is the wrong place to mention this, but you know, right, that ARP to an unnumbered bridged interface doesn't work if bridge(4) is loaded as a module? (The reason is the "#ifdef BRIDGE" conditional surrounding the definition of BRIDGE_TEST in if_ether.c.) Compiling bridge(4) into a kernel works just fine for this purpose, of course. Bruce.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:51 UTC