On 30-Sep-2003 Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Vincent Jardin writes: >>Le Mardi 30 Septembre 2003 03:03, Brooks Davis a écrit : >>> [Previously posted to -net in another form.] >>> >>> I propose to add an if_dev member to struct ifnet. It would be of type >>> device_t and be defined to point to the device for the interface or NULL >>> if there is no device (or if there was not an easy way to get access to >>> one). >>> >>> This change would codify the the relationship between an interface and >>> the underlying physical device. It also would get rid of the existing >>> abuses of if_name to look up the driver associated with an interface >>> and simplify a number of messy cases in the conversion from if_unit and >>> if_name to if_xname. >>> >>> Does this seem like a reasonable thing to do? >> >>Yes, if it helps to remove if_name/if_unit, it is a thing to do. Moreover it >>sounds a good idea to have the if_dev field into the ifnet structure. > > Somebody please explain how this would work for non-hardware > interfaces like if_loop, if_tun, if_tap etc ? > > device_t is what we use to hitch drivers to hardware. > > ifnet is what we use to hitch drivers to the netstack. > > They should not be tangled.
You mean like dev_t and device_t shouldn't be tangled like we do with si_drv1? Oh, wait... -- John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
