Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 19:01:29 -0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Abstracting struct ifnet Message-ID: <4F41B789.7050705@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <E23BCF0B-1C2F-4767-B2C5-ADAC62AEE7AF@xcllnt.net> References: <338757D1-6B1E-49CF-983F-5D5851066FD3@xcllnt.net> <20120217135320.GJ55075@FreeBSD.org> <E23BCF0B-1C2F-4767-B2C5-ADAC62AEE7AF@xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2/17/12 7:48 AM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2012, at 5:53 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>> M> Thoughts, feedback and suggestion are welcome,
>>
>> Is it possible to make the structure the driver points to opaque?
>>
>> Once made, that would allow us to hack on the ifnet (or on its
>> successor - iflogical) more aggressively without breaking ABI/API.
> Yes, that's the idea. Backward compatibility kinda conflicts
> with making struct ifnet entirely abstract, but I don't see
> that as a problem without solution. Only as a problem for
> which an acceptable solution must be found.
>
> For example: you can introduce a define that either old or
> new drivers use to indicate whether they need full visibility
> or whether an abstract type works. This then drives what is
> defined/declared and how it's defined/declared.
>
The trouble is that core debugging is not doable via methods
i.e.
netstat -i | -I interface [-abdhntW] [-f address_family] [-M core]
[-N system]
becomes much more difficult to achieve.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F41B789.7050705>