Cathy Zhou writes: > After the clarification, do you still think putting nodes of bridges in > /dev/net is preferable? If not, will any node of bridges shows up in /dev/net?
Just to follow up on this: I've done some testing, and the only difference between the /dev/bridge/ and /dev/net/ nodes is that the former are removed when the bridge terminates (they're referenced to bridge_inst_t), while the latter are removed when the observability node terminates (bridge_mac_t). There's always a bridge_mac_t when there's a bridge_inst_t, but there might be a bridge_mac_t when there's no bridge_inst_t. In concrete terms, if you start snooping on the bridge, then terminate the bridge daemon, you'll still see an entry in /dev/net/ but not in /dev/bridge/. It turns out that this was an important distinction at one point, but isn't anymore as the design has evolved, so I'll drop all of that extra goop related to handling /dev/bridge/. Thanks for the review! This is a good simplification. At least I learned something about devfs in the process ... -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[email protected]> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
