On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 09:15:17AM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote: > Milan Obuch wrote: > >On Wednesday 25 January 2006 08:56, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > > >>sthaug_at_nethelp.no wrote: > >> > >>>>We should probably better document the interface "interface". if we are > >>>>going to (as Sam suggests) > >>>>do some cleanups we might as well consider what other changes should be > >>>>put in at the same time. > >>> > >... > > > >>>- One feature sorely missed (which I use a lot in my daily work with > >>>hardware based routers) is the ability to associate a "description" > >>>field with each interface. Note that this should be available both > >>>for physical interfaces (Ethernet etc.) and for logical interfaces > >>>(e.g. vlan). > >> > >>Struct ifnet is the same for all kinds of interfaces, so any change > >>would make it available for everyone. And yes, this looks like a useful > >>addition. > > > >See archives - mailing list freebsd-net, Nov 25. 2005, subject ifconfig > >description. > > Interesting. Ideally it would not use a static sized buffer for the > description > but a pointer in struct ifnet to a malloc()ed block of memory. This would > allow > for arbitrary sized descriptions. Haven't looked at the difficulties > implementing > the this for the userland/kernel crossing though. See my post to -net a week or two ago suggesting deprecating the ifr_data member in favor of a pointer and a length. I proposed it specificaly to support this feature in a non-broken way. -- Brooks -- Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:51 UTC