Subject: Re: netatalk support
To: David Brownlee <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/03/1997 13:37:09
On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, David Brownlee wrote:
> Would it be reasonable for someone to look at making protocol lkm
> which can be loaded but not unloaded (as a first step), then work
> on making them unloadable?
I think so. Basically that'd be changing all the netisr routines into one
main one, and having it call entries in a jump table.
>From some of the stuff I removed from the netatalk code, it seems FreeBSD
can already do this (build up NETISR handlers). There was a
NETISR_SET(NETISR_ATALK, atintr) which got removed. Maybe impliment what
it di, and that'll be a start.
Thinking about it, it might not be so bad to unload a protocol. If it has
no sockets assigned to it, then it can safely be removed, I think. All the
routes & ifaddrs will need zapping, but that should be no big deal.