> Originally I had linkid_t, and I recall someone (I don't remember who)
Probably me ;-) > commenting that this type needed a prefix to prevent collisions with the > use of linkid_t in other areas of the code. I picked dladm_linkid_t > because it seemed to make the most sense. Are you suggesting I should > have a different prefix, say "datalink_linkid_t"? Or something else? How about datalink_id_t? datalink_linkid_t seems a bit redundant. -- meem
