[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Specifying names for tap interfaces
>> Dareen pointed out that such name would cause problems with various
>> tools. I guess bpf is not the only place that needs to be fixed.
> It is far better to accept "<name><number>" as a naming constraint
> than to try and "fix" all of the code that in one way or another
> expects it to be like that.
Why? I don't see any reason why the name should be constrained to end
with a digit string, especially if they're going to be admin-settable.
Indeed, I would argue that code which depends on such a naming scheme
is already broken and just doesn't happen to have its brokenness
exposed by most current systems - I don't think interface names have
ever been promised to end with digits; I see them as arbitrary C
strings, with the current <name><number> format an accident of the
current implementation, not part of the interface spec. (Of course, it
doesn't help that, as far as I know, that interface spec is entirely
Main Index |
Thread Index |