Subject: Re: Moving ethfoo in the main tree
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Manuel Bouyer <email@example.com>
Date: 12/13/2004 15:58:54
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 10:33:28AM +0100, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> I believe my ethfoo device has reached the point where it is useful
> enough (notably with qemu) it could be in the main part of tree, rather
> than a not built LKM. There are a few points I need to address before
> that, though.
I'd like too. I'll need it for Xen 2.0 domain0 support.
for the reasons why we need this :)
> First, naming convention. 'ethfoo' was fine while it was only an
> example, do we want to keep it instead of the commonly accepted 'tap'?
My idea was ethtun, but if tap is already used elsewhere, go for it.
> That leads to another question: should I add a tun-like part to it
> so it could replace tun(4), or should I merge it with tun? I don't
> think it really makes sense to have both around.
I was also thinking about adding a link2 flag to tun(4) to turn on ethernet
emulation. I don't know how this would play with the ethernet layer.
I think an ethernet device needs to be registered here at creation time,
and can't be attached/detached from the ethernet layer at a later time.
But I didn't look deeply at this.
Manuel Bouyer <email@example.com>
NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference