On 02/12/15(Wed) 21:46, David Gwynne wrote: > > > On 2 Dec 2015, at 8:49 PM, Claudio Jeker <cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 11:07:40AM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > >> On 02/12/15(Wed) 10:25, Claudio Jeker wrote: > >>> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 09:57:59AM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > >>>> Make sure if_output() and if_start() will never be called for the > >>>> bridge(4). > >>>> > >>>> Concerns? > >>> > >>> Why not use if_detached_start()? There is no if_detached_output() but we > >>> could add that as well. I would prefer that over NULL pointers that may > >>> get hit. > >> > >> I'd like to get rid of if_detached_start(), hit the NULL pointers and > >> fix the bugs. > >> > > > > Good luck. Esp. with alternate queuing disciplines and if flight packets. > > if you IFQ_PURGE(&ifp->if_snd) first then there's no in flight packets > anymore.
Are we talking about bridge or in general? When does a bridge(4) interface get packets in its sending queue?
