In D19032#407220, @rrs wrote:

I don't follow your suggestion. Why would I add a if_snd_tag_free() in if_attach_internal() .
The driver below has to do that just like it has to add the if_snd_tag_alloc(). The
internal function has no way of knowing what is the right thing to do in
freeing a tag that the driver allocates. Having it be NULL as the default in
the internal just the same as if_snd_tag_alloc() is the right thing, only
if a driver sets these should they get used (when RATELIMIT is configured of course)

Looks good.

In D19032#406795, @rrs wrote:

In D19032#406766, @hselasky wrote:

Hi,

This patch does not look correct. You will need to pass the flowid in order to correctly handle this inside lagg?

Address comments from @bz . Fix a CTR statement which was accessing an uninitialized variable.

In D18887#403208, @bz wrote:

(a) there's one or two lines of whitespace changes in there; can we get them sorted separately?

Whitespace diff reduction.

In D18887#403202, @kib wrote:

Can you add an explanation which of this changes fixes loss of ipv6 connectivity, and why the problem occurred in the first place.

Fixed a whitespaces vs tabs issue.

I don't see any issues here. And I'm not a ports expert :-)

In D18769#400969, @ae wrote:

In D18769#400967, @hselasky wrote:

So, why you think that this is wrong and shouldn't happen?

Because then TCP loopback on non-lo0 link-local addresses won't work.

Can you show an example? I just tested and it works:

% nc -6 -l fe80::e6a7:a0ff:fe8e:16bf%lagg0 1234
TEST

% nc -6 fe80::e6a7:a0ff:fe8e:16bf%lagg0 1234
TEST

In D18769#400622, @melifaro wrote:

Would it be possible to include firewalls in the test plan?
For example, ensure that ipfw still accepts the packet using something like 'allow ip6 from any to any via lo0' rule.

In D18769#400616, @ae wrote:

The current code would drop packets which are designated for loopback which use a link-local scope ID in the destination address or source address, because they won't match the lo0's scope ID.

So, why you think that this is wrong and shouldn't happen?

Address comments by bz@ .

What happend to the diffs in this differential revision?

@johalun0_gmail.com : Can you test this patch with DRM code?

In D18606#396732, @kib wrote:

In D18606#396731, @hselasky wrote:

Does this code handle forking of file descriptors?

What do you mean by forking ? Duping happens at descriptors layer, not file.

Does this code handle forking of file descriptors?