Subject: Re: Why /dev/bpf rather than /dev/bpf0?
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Christos Zoulas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/08/2004 20:59:25
In article <200412081306.05004@-gryphon>,
Michael Graff <email@example.com> wrote:
>I know the cloning devices sound great, and I agree they are the way go to.
>However, from a developer POV, I now need to:
> Try /dev/bpf if it exists.
> Try /dev/bpf# if not.
>Why didn't we just make /dev/bpf0 the clonable device, and remove all other
>numbered devices? This would make no changes in applications that
>try /dev/bpf0 first -- they would simply succeed.
Autoconf test? The /dev/bpf -> /dev/bpf0 is the least of your concerns if
you are writing code that it is supposed to run on other OS's. AIX for
example uses /dev/bpf.