In message <20030606125416.C3232@almesberger.net>,Werner Almesberger writes:
>Even with the route, the destination can remain "fixed".
>The VCC only makes sense in the context of the device, which
>is fully visible to the user. (It's different in the case of
>SVCs, but they're managed by a user space demon. Besides, if
>their device goes away, they die too.)
actually i think its a good idea to uncouple the atm
devices and the vcc. while the vcc is useless w/o the
atm dev, there are quite a few resources tied to the vcc
(via sk side). not having them seperate orignally led
to the 'nodev' atm device as a place to keep track of
vcc that are going away.
once the atm device/vcc are uncoupled they can easily be
converted to a net device. this keeps me from needing to
replicate the net device code (particularly the sysfs
stuff -- or so i hope). netdevices already have a handy
register/unregister that works (and will keep working).
why would i want to duplicate the net device work?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 07 2003 - 22:00:31 EST