Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Oliver Yang wrote:
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Peter Memishian wrote:
> I'd like to have folks review the work at >
http://cr.grommit.com/~gdamore/dmfe_gldv3/webrev
> > * This will make dmfe a DLPI style 1 provider as well.
(A good > thing, IMO, DLPI style 2 is a "bug".)
Yes. FWIW, all the Clearview /dev/net nodes are DLPI style-1 *only*.
Since those will be what applications interact with in the future,
we're on our way to getting rid of "style-2 disease".
> * I'd love to replace the dmfe-custom loopback ioctls with
standards > sys/netlb.h ioctls. However, I'm not sure if any
consumers are going to > be impacted.
IIRC, switching to sys/netlb.h would allow SunVTS coverage.
Yes, I believe that is true. What I'm not sure of, is whether there
is a custom SunVTS module in place for dmfe. (It wouldn't surprise
to learn that there is.) Is SunVTS open sourced? :-)
The lookback test of Sun VTS is quite special. It seems it requires
code changes in Sun VTS for new driver supporting. I'm not sure why?
Does anybody know about it?
The last time I looked, it had a fixed list of drivers, along with
some ioctls. There is supposed to be a "common" ioctl (which is
really derived from the original GEM ioctls) for it, but I still think
SunVTS isn't smart enough to realize whether a driver supports the
loopback ioctls or not.
Another wrinkle is that of course only a few drivers support the
netlb.h ioctls, since they were never formally published anywhere.
This is another tunable that I'd like brussels to just take care of.
I think it should be a public property for NIC driver, although few
drivers support it. Maybe brussels project can provide this feature by
dladm get property.
--
Cheers,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oliver Yang | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | x82229 | Work from home
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
