Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:20:37 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: small tun(4) improvement Message-ID: <20041015072037.GB53159@cell.sick.ru> In-Reply-To: <416EE620.186AD27A@freebsd.org> References: <20041014174225.GB49508@cell.sick.ru> <416EBF0A.CB1C0366@networx.ch> <20041014202305.GA50360@cell.sick.ru> <416EE620.186AD27A@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 10:48:32PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: A> > We are going to have triple cut'n'paste: if_tun.c, ng_device.c, if_tap.c. A> > What about m_uiocopy()? The question is where can we put this function? A> A> What about the existing m_uiotombuf() function in kern/uipc_mbuf.c? Damn, I'm blind. :) Investigated libmchain, but missed this. A> > P.P.S. BTW, ng_eiface+ng_device is going to supersede tap(4), same way as A> > ng_iface+ng_device is going to supersede tun(4). :) A> A> Yes and no. While the netgraph equivalents may have the same functionality A> we want to keep the existing and well-known API's to keep porting easier. A> On top of that there is nothing wrong with tap(4) and tun(4) (except the A> mbuf inefficiency you are about to fix). I didn't meant that we will remove tun(4) and tap(4). I meant that we can patch their consumers to alternatively use ng_iface. -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041015072037.GB53159>