Darren Reed wrote:
> Mark A. Carlson wrote:
>
>> This case times out today. Does anyone need more time or have
>> all the issues been addressed?
>>
>> -- mark
>>
>
> It would seem that the only unresolved issue was:
>
> > Thank you for pointing out the PSARC case for libpcap
> > integration with libdlpi, I was not aware of this recent initiative.
> > The webrev will come in handy if I am to proceed with updating
> > libnet to use dlpi, which is something I'm prepared to do if the
> > whole ARC feels it is necessary. This request expands the scope
> > of libnet's integration case compared to our original intentions,
> > and I will need a firm direction from the ARC in order to get this
> > work scheduled.
>
> ...given the time of year, I'm not sure if we should take the relative
> silence to mean the ARC is happy with the stated direction or not...
>
> Darren
>
I'm on sabbatical, so my suggestion carries no weight, but I humbly
recommend you let this case run for another week. I think the project
team needs to confirm resource commitment with their management as well,
so an extra week shouldn't hurt at all.
Darren, you were the one that raised the concern about possible
differences between libdlpi and actually using dlpi directly. Can you
elaborate any further on that? Is the issue that some interfaces won't
be available using certain names via pure DLPI? (Is this just because
of /dev/net versus /dev from Clearview? Perhaps libnet can be made to
understand to search in /dev/net first. That is probably a much smaller
effort than converting to use libdlpi.)
-- Garrett
