>
> My point has always been - if I have to add/do an ioctl I can always
> also use a library call that will read it from a .txt, .xml, .db file
> or whatever and I don't have to go to the kernel, handle all the
> string length problems there, ... especially as the kernel cannot do
> anything with that string.
>
The interface description feature is a useful feature. Quite a few
products out there actually put a label on the physical box so it's
reasonable to have the ability to label the ports in the kernel.
There are quite a few embedded systems and not-so-standalone boxes
out there that are derivatives of FreeBSD. These systems might not
have the luxury of a file system. And getting coredumps from the
field with such information embedded in the ifnet{} just makes
debugging field issues a little bit easier.
>
> So here comes the usual catch 22 on a classic PC system:
> you can change everything.
>
> Using RFC 2553 Section 4 is probably the best indeed but has
> drawbacks as well.
>
Seems rather off topic ...
-- Qing
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
