On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 02:02:16PM +0800, Paul Goyette wrote: > Shouldn't the vioif(4) device be more properly named if_vio(4), to be > consistent with other network interfaces?
I think the code was imported with the same filenames as its original source, to ease merging of updates. > With its current name, it could never successfully exist as an auto-loaded > kernel module, since the auto-load code assumes the if_ prefix! Sounds like a bug in the auto-load code. Thor
