Sebastien Roy wrote: >FYI, my usr/src/lib/libdlpi comments are coming shortly. > > > Thank you.
>>>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). > > > I'll stick to having a libdlpi specific constant as Meem pointed out that "provider is a DLPI concept, and is passed to a function that expects a buffer of DLPI_LINKNAME_MAX in size. " Setting DLPI_LINKNAME_MAX to IF_NAMESIZE rather than 32; wouldn't that be pegging the value to a upper layer constant? >>>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()? > > > Yes. >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. > > > Alright, I'll leave that to be a RFE or bug fix. -Thanks, Sagun
