Peter Memishian wrote: > > > Seems like the fallback to /dev should only occur if the device is not > > > known to the UV framework. That is: > > > > > > * Search for <link> in /dev/net/; if it's found, we're done. > > > * Check if <link> matches a device name known to linkmgmtd (or > > > wherever this information is stored). If so, fail with ENOENT > > > (since if the device had a link matching that name, it would've > > > already been found). > > > * Otherwise, fallback to a scan of /dev. > > > > > > But maybe I'm missing something. > > > > > So who will do the second step? libdlpi? Or part of /dev/net/<name> > lookup? > > I'd think it'd need to be libdlpi -- otherwise, the kernel would be making > a policy decision about fallback that seems inappropriate. > > > I feel both are hacky. > > I agree it's gross -- but I think the strcmp() stuff would be worse. > > What would it take it get all of the DLPI devices in /dev/net?
Sorry, can you rephrase your question? - Cathy > Is the > problem due to the fact that devices like vni and sppp register themselves > as DDI_PSEUDO? Or something else? (Sorry, my memory here is fuzzy.) >
