Peter Memishian wrote: > > > > dladm_delete_conf() /* delete_conf */ > > > > dladm_destroy_conf() /* free_conf */ > > > > These two names can be easily confused. > > I agree -- especially since the dladm UI generally has create/delete as > opposites (as per my earlier mail), but here we're correctly using > create/destroy as opposites. > > > Maybe dladm_delete_conf(), dladm_release_conf()? > > When I think of "release", I don't think of deallocating something. What > about keeping destroy, but changing "delete" to "remove"? Anyway, it's > Dan's call :-) >
For the record, since the name changes have been scattered over other mails: For the Link ID management API: dladm_create_linkid() /* get_new_linkid */ dladm_destroy_linkid() /* delete_linkid */ dladm_linkid2name() /* id2name */ dladm_name2linkid() /* name2id */ dladm_remap_linkid() /* rename */ dladm_walk_linkid() /* The walker mentioned in my reply to Cathy */ For the persistent link configuration API: dladm_create_conf() /* get_new_conf */ dladm_set_conf_field() /* set_conf_field */ dladm_get_conf_field() /* get_conf_field */ dladm_read_conf() /* get_conf */ dladm_write_conf() /* commit_conf */ dladm_remove_conf() /* delete_conf */ dladm_destroy_conf() /* free_conf */ dladm_walk_conf() /* walk_confs */ dladm_rename_conf() /* rename wrapper suggested by Cathy */ Do those names look correct? thanks, Dan
