small tun(4) improvement

Gleb Smirnoff glebius at
Fri Oct 15 00:20:40 PDT 2004

On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 10:48:32PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
A> > We are going to have triple cut'n'paste: if_tun.c, ng_device.c, if_tap.c.
A> > What about m_uiocopy()? The question is where can we put this function?
A> What about the existing m_uiotombuf() function in kern/uipc_mbuf.c?

Damn, I'm blind. :) Investigated libmchain, but missed this.

A> > P.P.S. BTW, ng_eiface+ng_device is going to supersede tap(4), same way as
A> > ng_iface+ng_device is going to supersede tun(4).  :)
A> Yes and no.  While the netgraph equivalents may have the same functionality
A> we want to keep the existing and well-known API's to keep porting easier.
A> On top of that there is nothing wrong with tap(4) and tun(4) (except the
A> mbuf inefficiency you are about to fix).

I didn't meant that we will remove tun(4) and tap(4). I meant that we can
patch their consumers to alternatively use ng_iface.

Totus tuus, Glebius.

More information about the freebsd-net mailing list