Why lagg(4) wants ~IFF_DRV_OACTIVE?

[David Horn]

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Andrew Thompson <thompsa at freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:12:25AM -0800, Xin LI wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Maybe this is a stupid question but I really don't understand why a
>> interface with IFF_DRV_OACTIVE can't be added to a lagg(4) interface.
>> Looking at OpenBSD code, they do this since the day 0.
>>
>> Could anyone shed some light, why we need to enforce this check? :)
>
> I think it was just carried over, I dont see any reason to keep it.

That's good news.

Someone,  please review and commit attached patch for
sys/net/if_lagg.c.  This also fixes my PR:  kern/139117.

--Thanks!

--_Dave Horn
-------------- next part --------------
Index: if_lagg.c
===================================================================
--- if_lagg.c	(revision 204877)
+++ if_lagg.c	(working copy)
@@ -484,10 +484,6 @@
 	if (sc->sc_count >= LAGG_MAX_PORTS)
 		return (ENOSPC);
 
-	/* New lagg port has to be in an idle state */
-	if (ifp->if_drv_flags & IFF_DRV_OACTIVE)
-		return (EBUSY);
-
 	/* Check if port has already been associated to a lagg */
 	if (ifp->if_lagg != NULL)
 		return (EBUSY);