On (03/06/08 23:18), Joost Mulders wrote: > > I remain unconvinced that the folks who are using it today or other > > things would need to continue to do so given the option of a dladm > > based > > equivalent. > > > > I would like to add a big YES to the statement above! > > I don't understand why we put effort in maintaining compatibilty with > a mistake we made in the past. Or is just to punish ourselves for > making the mistake?
The idea is to clean up the existing ndd code in drivers to deal with these ioctls, while allowing scripts (and C code out there) that already has calls to ndd (or the underlying ioctl itself) embedded in them. After this is putback, drivers that have nd_param_t related swill today will be free of such code, and the ndd callers will not even notice --Sowmini
