Re: Specifying names for tap interfaces

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

In article <20120629153230.GB6888%asim.lip6.fr@localhost>,
Manuel Bouyer  <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost> wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 04:24:33PM +0100, David Brownlee wrote:
>> On 29 June 2012 15:16, Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost> 
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 03:10:13PM +0100, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
>> >> >Yes, it's not intended to be more than a convenience. user-settable names
>> >> >aren't more than this either (but less convenient, IMHO).
>> >>
>> >> This conversation has gone really long, and I'm still not sure of
>> >> the outcome of it. I have however a simple patch that allows
>> >> renaming network interfaces. Is there any interest on posting it?
>> >
>> > renaming interfaces alone is not acceptable
>> 
>> While I don't want to open the entire can of worms again, would
>> renaming interfaces plus boot time name always being visible as a
>> human readable value from ifconfig be sufficient?
>
>It depends for what they're being used. Roger, why do you want this ?
>Isn't passing a FD to qemu instead of a name working ?

This is my question too? Why isn't passing the fd acceptable?
Another way is to provide an ioctl that gets passed the fd, and returns
the device instance name, so that the caller can get hold of the name?

christos