Re: [PATCH 13/24] tap: export pool_flush()/tapX_handler()/packet_add()

On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 12:15:30AM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:11:40 +0100 Laurent Vivier wrote:

...

From: Laurent Vivier

Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier --- tap.c | 98 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------ tap.h | 7 +++++ 2 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)

I'm assuming that you need this patch to recycle those bits of "tap" functions for usage in vhost-user code... which shows they actually have little to do with tun/tap interfaces.

But sure, we already have there stuff to deal with UNIX domain sockets, so "tap" is already somewhat inconsistent.

If use "tap" for a (long) moment to denote "anything guest/container facing", then:

We're definitely doing that at present. I am wondering with adding this third "tap" option that's even further from tuntap whether we should rethink that naming convention. I was contemplating something along the lines of "l2if" emphasizing that the thing in common is that it's a transport operating at L2 level, unlike the "sock" side operating at l4. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson