Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 10:33:48 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: adding if_dev member to struct ifnet Message-ID: <XFMail.20030930103348.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <8475.1064905854@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 30-Sep-2003 Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <200309301045.15776.vjardin@wanadoo.fr>, 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 <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20030930103348.jhb>