On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 12:35:52AM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote: > In article <20080407224332.GB2154%drowsy.duskware.de@localhost>, > Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost> wrote: > >On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 02:24:34AM +0900, Yasuoka Masahiko wrote: > >> I thought we should consider compatibility with other OSs, so I looked > >> FreeBSD and Linux. FreeBSD 7.0 remains ppp on all cases, and CentOS > >> 4.5 destroys on all cases, there is nothing we learn from these OSs. > > > >I have no strong opinion, but either of those seem more consistent to > >me than to make close() behave differently depending on history of the > >device. > > Well, if pppd opened the device and pppd dies/exits/closes the device, > then the device should dissappear, otherwise in a system where you have > many ppp sessions happen dynamically you are end up with a lot of unused > ppp<N> interfaces. Of course you can teach pppd to remove the cloners... No, because an unused ppp interface will be re-used, so you only end up with as many interfaces as the maximum number of concurrent sessions. I guess we could not make the closing from pppd destroy the interface so it is consistent. -- Quentin Garnier - cube%cubidou.net@localhost - cube%NetBSD.org@localhost "See the look on my face from staying too long in one place [...] every time the morning breaks I know I'm closer to falling" KT Tunstall, Saving My Face, Drastic Fantastic, 2007.
Attachment:
pgpgyVV6xHsWU.pgp
Description: PGP signature