On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Jon Loeliger <j...@netgate.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Damjan Marion (damarion) < > damar...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> >> > On 28 Mar 2017, at 12:15, Kinsella, Ray <ray.kinse...@intel.com> wrote: >> > >> > +1 to Jon's comments. >> > >> > >> > On 24/03/2017 14:07, Pierre Pfister (ppfister) wrote: >> >> Hello Jon, >> >> >> >> No strong opinion on my side, but I'd just like to notice that there >> might be cases where multiple interfaces, in linux, have the same name, if >> they are in different network namespaces. >> >> VPP could literally control the back-end of thousands of containers' >> interfaces, all called eth0. >> > >> > Well your backend and your frontend device names are typically named >> different. You are correct in that frontend device in the container is >> always eth0, the backend device for each container's eth0 is uniquely named >> in the default network namespace. >> >> Can somebody come up with the patch proposal? >> >> Thanks! > > > Happy to do so. One question, though: what is the purpose of > the "renumber" and "custom_dev_instance" fields? > > Thanks, > jdl > OK. I've read through bunch of that custom_dev_instance code now. I was initially not paying attention to it, as it stumbled into the so-called "tapcli" data, and we're not using the VPP CLI. I think the dev_custom_instance will do what we want (Allow the user to specify the number that will be used as the "show" name for the corresponding tap interface. Good.). However, I now have a different issue with this code. Almost all the code in the tapcli.c file is implementation that should be shared by both the CLI and the API. RIght now, the API sort of cannibalizes into the CLI code. Instead, there should be three files here: the CLI, the API and the underlying implementation of Tap data structures. Will you entertain a patch down that line? Thanks, jdl
_______________________________________________ vpp-dev mailing list vpp-dev@lists.fd.io https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
