From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Mar 4 11:21: 0 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52.attbi.com [216.148.227.88]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C11A937B41A; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 11:20:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from InterJet.elischer.org ([12.232.206.8]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020304192015.QCOC1147.rwcrmhc52.attbi.com@InterJet.elischer.org>; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:20:15 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA26898; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 11:14:04 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 11:14:04 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer To: Luigi Rizzo Cc: Brooks Davis , "Crist J. Clark" , Archie Cobbs , freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Patches to if_loop + the interface cloning framework In-Reply-To: <20020304103242.A67658@iguana.icir.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > speaking of which , would it be reasonable to merge if_disc and if_loop ? > The former is basically a stripped down version of the latter, so > it hardly justifies a separate device > I think I'd rather keep them separate. Why complicate either of them? (anyhow it would be difficult to have a separate if_disc .ko module if it were compiled into the loopback. It's not a great complicated thing.. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message