Re: [Xen-devel] [patch] xen udev rule interfering with openvpn

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 12:04 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [patch] xen udev rule interfering with 
> openvpn"):
> > On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 11:55 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > I'm not quite up to speed with all the context here but is the reason
> > > that you're not suggesting "xen-" is that that's already used for
> > > something else ?
> > 
> > This is to distinguish the vif device from the associated tap device,
> > which would otherwise both be called whatever the user gave as "vifname"
> > in their config, so for vifname=foo you would get foo (the PV one) and
> > xen-foo (the EMU one) which does the job but doesn't really distinguish
> > them.
> 
> Ah, I see.  This sounds like more a job for a suffix than a prefix so
> if we can spare 4 chars I would suggest foo-emu.

So for vifname="foo" it is a no-brainer to call the vif "foo" and the
emulated tap device "foo-emu".

But what about the case where no vifname is given, in that case vif is
named "vif<DOM>.<DEV>". But what to call the tap? Previously I was
changing the name from tap<DOM>.<DEV> to xentap<DOM>.<DEV> but perhaps
now "vif<DOM>.<DEV>-emu" makes more sense/is more consistent?

Ian.



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel