Re: vioif vs if_vio

[Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost>]

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 02:02:16PM +0800, Paul Goyette wrote:
> Shouldn't the vioif(4) device be more properly named if_vio(4), to be
> consistent with other network interfaces?

I think the code was imported with the same filenames as its original
source, to ease merging of updates.

> With its current name, it could never successfully exist as an auto-loaded
> kernel module, since the auto-load code assumes the if_ prefix!

Sounds like a bug in the auto-load code.

Thor