Re: shutdown node VS disconnect all hooks
From: Gleb Smirnoff (glebius_at_cell.sick.ru)
Date: 05/28/04
- Previous message: Gleb Smirnoff: "Re: shutdown node VS disconnect all hooks"
- In reply to: Julian Elischer: "Re: shutdown node VS disconnect all hooks"
- Next in thread: Gleb Smirnoff: "Re: shutdown node VS disconnect all hooks"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 15:08:32 +0400 To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 01:31:09AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
J> It'd be best to make the change to sparse initialisers a separate patch
J> that I cold commit separatly,
J> so reduce teh size of the functionality change patch.
And here is next patch, that must be applied after c99-patch. It introduces
a pre-shutdown method - ng_close_t. And it makes ng_tee behave exactly the
way it does in STABLE.
-- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- text/plain attachment: ng_tee_bypass.diff
- Previous message: Gleb Smirnoff: "Re: shutdown node VS disconnect all hooks"
- In reply to: Julian Elischer: "Re: shutdown node VS disconnect all hooks"
- Next in thread: Gleb Smirnoff: "Re: shutdown node VS disconnect all hooks"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|