Re: TEST PLEASE: if_tun patch

From: Brooks Davis (brooks_at_one-eyed-alien.net)
Date: 09/29/03

  • Next message: Jeff Roberson: "Re: Status of SCHED_ULE?" 
    Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 22:04:42 -0700
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>

    On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 11:57:19PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
    >
    > Please test this patch:
    >
    > http://phk.freebsd.dk/patch/if_tun.patch
    >
    > There is a slight change in semantics in that the interface will disappear
    > entirely when the /dev/tun%d device is closed.
    >
    > If no objections this will be committed in some days.

    > | Properly dismantle and remove the interface and destroy the dev_t
    > | at last close of the device.

    I'm not convinced this is the right direction to move in. The problem
    is that users are beginning to expect that pseudo-interfaces be created
    with network interface cloning, but tun, tap, and vmnet aren't. I'm
    concerned that this destroy on last close semantic will make it harder
    to implement that. I guess if we moved to a model where we allowed both
    methods to work, we could somehow add an extra reference when we cloned
    interfaces via "ifconfig <if> create", but I don't know the devfs side
    well enough to know if that's possible.

    This doesn't constitute an objection since I've had over a year to fix
    these drivers, but I'd appreciate it if you would give it some thought.

    -- Brooks

    P.S. Since you're moving it anyway, we make the assumption in the
    network code that the ifnet struct is the first member of the softc so
    you might want to fix tun while you're there. See the comment around
    if_var.h:111. 

    -- 
Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE.
PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529  9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4

  • Next message: Jeff Roberson: "Re: Status of SCHED_ULE?"

    Relevant Pages