On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 17:18 -0400, Sagun Shakya wrote: > Thank you for you comments, Seb. My responses are inline.
FYI, my usr/src/lib/libdlpi comments are coming shortly. > Sebastien Roy wrote: > > >usr/src/cmd/cmd-inet/usr.sbin/ifconfig/ifconfig.c > > > >3649: why not use IF_NAMESIZE (the standard maximum interface name > > constant)? > > > > > Using a standard constant makes more sense. I've changed it to be a > IF_NAMESIZE. On the other hand, if you'd rather have a libdlpi specific constant, that's fine, but instead of setting it to 32 in libdlpi.h, I'd set it to IF_NAMESIZE (or LIFNAMSIZ). > >3659, 3774: A comment is warranted regarding why this needs to be done. > > > Before adding comments, I wanted to get opinions about making > dlpi_detach a flag to dlpi_open() instead of providing it as a > Consolidation private interface. You mean like a DLPI_NOATTACH flag to dlpi_open()? > Right now the only consumer of dlpi_detach is ifconfig.c, in order to > make this change the function signature of plumb_one_device() would need > to be changed as well. This would also simplify plumb_one_device() and > inetplumb(). > > static void > -plumb_one_device(dlpi_if_attr_t *diap, int ip_fd, int af) > *+plumb_one_device(int af)* > > Also, since dlpi_attach() is not explicitly called by any applications > there is no need to provide this api as a consolidation private interface. That sound fine to me, but in reality, I'd like to get to the bottom of why the ip module needs to drive this attach. I think it would be fine if dlpi_open() did the attach and the ip module were modified to expect an already attached DLPI style-2 device... Anyway, that part can be fixed as a separate RFE or bug fix. Thanks! -Seb
