I agree.. and same thing goes for Ethernet drivers. I actually
like the way Linux always has eth0, eth1, ... (which we could
Yeagh... what is wrong with ed0, de0, fxp0 etc that needs changing? Is this
just a matter of taste or is there more to it? I for one don't see any
advantage in
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Harlan Stenn wrote:
Also the eth[0..x] thing means you can replace your ethernet card with a
new one of a different type without having to look through your config
code for references to ed0 or whatever.
Just to ask, what happens when the probe order changes and your
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Leif Neland wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Archie Cobbs wrote:
Doug Rabson writes:
And another thing. Why can't we use a non-driver-specific name for the
disk? Most users simply don't care whether the driver was fd, wfd, wd or
anything. They just want to get
From: Wilko Bulte wi...@yedi.iaf.nl
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 23:12:18 +0100 (CET)
Yeagh... what is wrong with ed0, de0, fxp0 etc that needs changing? Is this
just a matter of taste or is there more to it? I for one don't see any
advantage in eth[0-9] style device naming.
It's a matter of whether
As sth...@nethelp.no wrote...
I agree.. and same thing goes for Ethernet drivers. I actually
like the way Linux always has eth0, eth1, ... (which we could
Yeagh... what is wrong with ed0, de0, fxp0 etc that needs changing? Is this
just a matter of taste or is there more to it? I for
As Daniel O'Connor wrote...
On 27-Jan-99 Wilko Bulte wrote:
I agree.. and same thing goes for Ethernet drivers. I actually
like the way Linux always has eth0, eth1, ... (which we could
Yeagh... what is wrong with ed0, de0, fxp0 etc that needs changing? Is this
just a matter of taste
Not true IMO. You still need to know what hardware you have before you
can build your own kernels etc etc.
Also the eth[0..x] thing means you can replace your ethernet card
with a new one of a different type without having to look through
your config code for references to ed0 or
As David Wolfskill wrote...
From: Wilko Bulte wi...@yedi.iaf.nl
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 23:12:18 +0100 (CET)
Yeagh... what is wrong with ed0, de0, fxp0 etc that needs changing? Is this
just a matter of taste or is there more to it? I for one don't see any
advantage in eth[0-9] style device
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
I agree.. and same thing goes for Ethernet drivers. I actually
like the way Linux always has eth0, eth1, ... (which we could
Yeagh... what is wrong with ed0, de0, fxp0 etc that needs changing? Is this
just a matter of taste or is there
Wilko Bulte wrote:
Well, for one its sucks trying to get newbies to work out what their
network card is
called..
Not true IMO. You still need to know what hardware you have before you can
build your
own kernels etc etc.
Yes, this is true, but when they have just installed then its true
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Kenneth D. Merry wrote:
Just symlink eth0 to which card you like, just as /dev/mixer happens to be
a symlink to /dev/mixer1 on my system.
How are you going to do that, when network drivers don't have device nodes?
Minor point :-)
Sorry, I missed that.
Leif
To
, the time has come...
No, it doesn't have to be SLICE. In particular, if we're going the
SLICE way, it should be done right, and Julians SLICE
code didn't
do that. (I know, I spent close to 6 months prototyping the concept
and julian had my code to work from).
Wouldn't
Doug Rabson writes:
And another thing. Why can't we use a non-driver-specific name for the
disk? Most users simply don't care whether the driver was fd, wfd, wd or
anything. They just want to get to their files without any fuss.
I agree.. and same thing goes for Ethernet drivers. I actually
On 27-Jan-99 Archie Cobbs wrote:
I agree.. and same thing goes for Ethernet drivers. I actually
like the way Linux always has eth0, eth1, ... (which we could
do using netgraph, with some work).
Me too :)
Of course you'd have to be able to do things like 'wire down' your ethernet
card
Daniel O'Connor writes:
On 27-Jan-99 Archie Cobbs wrote:
I agree.. and same thing goes for Ethernet drivers. I actually
like the way Linux always has eth0, eth1, ... (which we could
do using netgraph, with some work).
Me too :)
Of course you'd have to be able to do things like 'wire
On 28-Jan-99 Archie Cobbs wrote:
That would be easy part! :-) Something like this...
$ ngctl mkpeer ed0: eth_iface upstream downstream
Heh.. It would be nice if it was automagic though..
(Where's my kernel config option :)
---
Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer
for Genesis
Daniel O'Connor writes:
On 28-Jan-99 Archie Cobbs wrote:
That would be easy part! :-) Something like this...
$ ngctl mkpeer ed0: eth_iface upstream downstream
Heh.. It would be nice if it was automagic though..
Well, if it's automatic then you can't necessarily wire it down
the way you
On 28-Jan-99 Archie Cobbs wrote:
Well, if it's automatic then you can't necessarily wire it down
the way you want to.. you can't have both at the same time.
Anyway, it's not automatic now either:
network_interfaces=lo0 ed0 # List of network interfaces (lo0 is
loopback).
Daniel O'Connor writes:
Anyway, it's not automatic now either:
network_interfaces=lo0 ed0 # List of network interfaces (lo0 is
loopback).
ifconfig_lo0=inet 127.0.0.1 # default loopback device configuration.
ifconfig_ed0=inet 192.168.1.1
...etc...
I suppose thats
As Archie Cobbs wrote...
Doug Rabson writes:
And another thing. Why can't we use a non-driver-specific name for the
disk? Most users simply don't care whether the driver was fd, wfd, wd or
anything. They just want to get to their files without any fuss.
I agree.. and same thing goes
On 27-Jan-99 Wilko Bulte wrote:
I agree.. and same thing goes for Ethernet drivers. I actually
like the way Linux always has eth0, eth1, ... (which we could
Yeagh... what is wrong with ed0, de0, fxp0 etc that needs changing? Is this
just a matter of taste or is there more to it? I for one
Also the eth[0..x] thing means you can replace your ethernet card with a
new one of a different type without having to look through your config
code for references to ed0 or whatever.
Just to ask, what happens when the probe order changes and your multiple
NICs start popping up on the wrong
On 28-Jan-99 Harlan Stenn wrote:
code for references to ed0 or whatever.
Just to ask, what happens when the probe order changes and your multiple
NICs start popping up on the wrong eth port?
Thats why I mentioned wiring them down a la SCSI.
Or will be be able to wire them down in the
Harlan Stenn writes:
Also the eth[0..x] thing means you can replace your ethernet card with a
new one of a different type without having to look through your config
code for references to ed0 or whatever.
Just to ask, what happens when the probe order changes and your multiple
NICs
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Archie Cobbs wrote:
Doug Rabson writes:
And another thing. Why can't we use a non-driver-specific name for the
disk? Most users simply don't care whether the driver was fd, wfd, wd or
anything. They just want to get to their files without any fuss.
I agree..
Leif Neland wrote...
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Archie Cobbs wrote:
Doug Rabson writes:
And another thing. Why can't we use a non-driver-specific name for the
disk? Most users simply don't care whether the driver was fd, wfd, wd or
anything. They just want to get to their files
I think Solaris (?) requires you to do this, it's called plumbing
your interfaces or something (according to Julian).
Solaris requires interface plumbing as the result of STREAMS; you
have to push IP on top of the interface driver. For all intents and
purposes, the device name identifies a
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Archie Cobbs wrote:
Harlan Stenn writes:
Also the eth[0..x] thing means you can replace your ethernet card with a
new one of a different type without having to look through your config
code for references to ed0 or whatever.
Just to ask, what happens when the
In message 199901260451.uaa23...@bubba.whistle.com, Archie Cobbs writes:
Maxim Sobolev writes:
Can you point all people (and me of course) who want to test DEVFS to some
common information about DEVFS (usage, possible advantages/disadvantages etc.
I think some FAQ or so will be nice. It's
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 199901260451.uaa23...@bubba.whistle.com, Archie Cobbs writes:
Maxim Sobolev writes:
Can you point all people (and me of course) who want to test DEVFS to some
common information about DEVFS (usage, possible advantages/disadvantages
No, it doesn't have to be SLICE. In particular, if we're going the
SLICE way, it should be done right, and Julians SLICE code didn't
do that. (I know, I spent close to 6 months prototyping the concept
and julian had my code to work from).
Wouldn't it be possible to fit this into the device
-Original Message-
From: Poul-Henning Kamp [mailto:p...@critter.freebsd.dk]
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 1999 10:41 AM
To: Doug Rabson
Cc: Archie Cobbs; Maxim Sobolev; curr...@freebsd.org; Julian Elischer
Subject: Re: DEVFS, the time has come...
No, it doesn't have to be SLICE
Wouldn't it be possible to fit this into the device system?
If we treat
disks as devices and partition types as drivers, most of the
boring work
of matching drivers to devices and keeping lists and trees
of objects will
happen automatically.
Well, as long as you remember that it is
[.]
So I'd like to make another attempt to get agreement on the next
step here, so that *something* can happen. We need to get more
people using DEVFS, so we can gain some experience feedback.
I don't think DEVFS has any issues that are not surmountable.
However, at some point you must
Dear Archie,
Can you point all people (and me of course) who want to test DEVFS to some
common information about DEVFS (usage, possible advantages/disadvantages etc.)?
I think some FAQ or so will be nice. It's really will help us to go further
with this issue.
Sincerely,
Maxim
Archie Cobbs
yo, brian,
are you on 'net'?
have you had a look at the netgraph stuff?
particularly the kernel nodes that we use in conjuntion with mpd, and the
usserland modules of mpd that we use with it?
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Brian Somers wrote:
[.]
So I'd like to make another attempt to get
Brian Somers writes:
So I'd like to make another attempt to get agreement on the next
step here, so that *something* can happen. We need to get more
people using DEVFS, so we can gain some experience feedback.
I don't think DEVFS has any issues that are not surmountable.
However, at
yo, brian,
are you on 'net'?
have you had a look at the netgraph stuff?
particularly the kernel nodes that we use in conjuntion with mpd, and the
usserland modules of mpd that we use with it?
Eh, dunno :-/ What's netgraph (it rings bells - have you mentioned
it before ?) ?
--
Brian
Brian Somers writes:
yo, brian,
are you on 'net'?
have you had a look at the netgraph stuff?
particularly the kernel nodes that we use in conjuntion with mpd, and the
usserland modules of mpd that we use with it?
Eh, dunno :-/ What's netgraph (it rings bells - have you mentioned
Maxim Sobolev writes:
Can you point all people (and me of course) who want to test DEVFS to some
common information about DEVFS (usage, possible advantages/disadvantages etc.
I think some FAQ or so will be nice. It's really will help us to go further
with this issue.
I agree.. and I've bugged
- What other code beside the installer (if any) uses libdisk?
Nothing does. That probably says something in and of itself. :)
- What are the relevant installer files in the source tree?
/usr/src/release/sysinstall.
- Jordan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with
Poul-Henning Kamp writes:
... to make up our mind about it.
[ clear arguments for DEVFS and why persistence is complicated ]
This email was a few weeks ago, and there was a lively debate, then
Julian sent an email listing some issues/requirements, and then
the thread kindof died and now we're
42 matches
Mail list logo
