From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 21 22:06:46 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A74F816A400 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:06:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Received: from ebb.errno.com (ebb.errno.com [69.12.149.25]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14BC413C4E1 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:06:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Received: from Macintosh-2.local ([10.0.0.196]) (authenticated bits=0) by ebb.errno.com (8.13.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m1LLuebe067842 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:56:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Message-ID: <47BDF398.3060108@errno.com> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:56:40 -0800 From: Sam Leffler Organization: Errno Consulting User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= References: <86odacc04t.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20080221072410.GC96595@funkthat.com> <86ablua4pk.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20080221193217.GF96595@funkthat.com> <868x1eja16.fsf@ds4.des.no> In-Reply-To: <868x1eja16.fsf@ds4.des.no> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-DCC-sonic.net-Metrics: ebb.errno.com; whitelist Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dev.* analogue for interfaces X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:06:46 -0000 Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > John-Mark Gurney writes: >> My case is perfectly clear. We already have dev.* for this, and you >> want to add a second, confusing, place to put similar/same information... >> Yes, this is specific for network interfaces, but what makes a network >> interface special that it's configuration can't live in dev.*? You >> stated that you were fine w/ some items being in dev.* and others in >> net.if.* for the same device, which is why I objected. > > If you can't tell the difference between a struct ifnet and a device_t, > I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree. > > DES I think you need to experiment with this before you push a proposal. In net80211 I've had parallel net.wlan.X tree's that are companion to dev.* tree's and it's worked out ok but mostly because there is a clear layering/distinction between the two. I believe the original motivation for this was for s/w only devices that don't otherwise have a dev.* entry. I recently handled something like this for the cryptosoft driver by arbitrarily attaching it to nexus and it worked out very well. I personally would just attach these other devices under net. as that's existing practice but I'm open to your suggestion. Sam