Subject: Re: thoughts on a dohooks(9) API?
To: Pavel Cahyna <pavel.cahyna@st.mff.cuni.cz>
From: Jeff Rizzo <riz@NetBSD.org>
List: tech-kern
Date: 01/04/2006 11:28:13
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig98A67AEEFF528A5637764A72
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Pavel Cahyna wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 08:26:20AM -0800, Jeff Rizzo wrote:
>  =20
>> I'm helping someone to port carp(4) from OpenBSD
>> (comments/flames/whatever on the desirability of THAT in another threa=
d,
>> please :), and we've come across some instances where we need to add
>> hooks to certain events (interface up, address change, etc).  OpenBSD
>> has a dohooks(9) API that is used to implement various hook-needing
>> functions (their doshutdownhooks() is implemented on top of it, for
>>    =20
>
> This has been discussed, see
> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-net/2004/09/19/0012.html and the whol=
e
> thread.
>
> See also pfil_add_hook(9). couldn't it do what you need?
>
> Pavel Cahyna
>  =20

Thanks for the pointer to the email thread - I'll follow up to tech-net,
then, since nothing appears to have come of that discussion.  :/

I don't think I need per-packet hooks in this case (though I haven't dug
too deep, yet), so at first blush, pfil_add_hook() looks wrong.

Thanks!
+j



--------------enig98A67AEEFF528A5637764A72
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQCVAwUBQ7wh0bOuUtxCgar5AQNTMAQAja549n/OWrAc8wcWN7VApNSgN6ISbNij
1mh9lUQfMswH10GstkK4FEAqSSsqFNdFt3cAZhOPNsewkP+46ixwW3XwWGLv57GF
J9hRLvyZKtZ6Nis3JxV8oFCfbBZaJVQmPG6jrV5SC3JCooMIPI+zXlSNY4rg2EeL
+0FWlJgPpko=
=aV51
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig98A67AEEFF528A5637764A72--