From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Sep 28 22:29:10 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FBF516A4B3
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Sun, 28 Sep 2003 22:29:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 950F244003
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Sun, 28 Sep 2003 22:29:09 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8T5T8LG004473;
	Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:29:08 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 28 Sep 2003 22:04:42 PDT."
             <20030929050442.GA20995@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> 
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:29:08 +0200
Message-ID: <4472.1064813348@critter.freebsd.dk>
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: TEST PLEASE: if_tun patch 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 05:29:10 -0000

In message <20030929050442.GA20995@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu>, Brooks Davis writes:


>> | Properly dismantle and remove the interface and destroy the dev_t=20
>> | at last close of the device.
>
>I'm not convinced this is the right direction to move in.  The problem
>is that users are beginning to expect that pseudo-interfaces be created
>with network interface cloning, but tun, tap, and vmnet aren't.

I'm totally "don't-care" on the semantics of any and all of these,
my patch is just an attempt to evict makedev() from the tree.  If you
have a better idea how to do this, by all means go for it.

It has also been pointed out that my subsequent if_tap.c patch would
likely break the way people expect the "vmnet" device to work so I
have already canned that.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.