Re: git: 349fcf079ca3 - main - net: add ifnet_rename_event EVENTHANDLER(9) for interface renaming

> On Feb 4, 2026, at 5:16 AM, Mark Johnston <markj@freebsd.org> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 02:23:48AM +0000, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>> The branch main has been updated by glebius:
>> 
>> URL: https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/src/commit/?id=349fcf079ca32d5c93e45366d2b27638747affeb
>> 
>> commit 349fcf079ca32d5c93e45366d2b27638747affeb
>> Author:     Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org>
>> AuthorDate: 2025-12-21 21:31:43 +0000
>> Commit:     Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org>
>> CommitDate: 2025-12-22 02:23:14 +0000
>> 
>>    net: add ifnet_rename_event EVENTHANDLER(9) for interface renaming
>> 
>>    and don't trigger ifnet_arrival_event and ifnet_departure_event for a
>>    rename, as the interface isn't being detached from any protocol.  The
>>    consumers of the arrival/departure events are divided into a few
>>    categories:
>>    - which indeed need to do the same actions as if interface was fully
>>      detached and attached: routing socket and netlink notifications to
>>      userland and the Linux sysfs.  All addressed by this commit.
>>    - which build their logic based on an interface name, but should actually
>>      update their database on rename: packet filters.  This commit leaves
>>      them with the old behavior - emulate full detach & attach, but this
>>      should be improved.
>>    - which shouldn't do anything on rename, not touched by the commit.
>>    - ng_ether and if_tuntap, that are special and will be addressed by
>>      separate commits.
> 
> Can we get rid of the IFF_RENAMING flag now?  IIUC all of its uses are
> in ifnet_departure_event handlers to short-circuit the handler because
> the interface is not actually going away.

Now that we have ifnet_rename_event, I think the flag IFF_RENAMING is
not longer required.

Well there're still some consumers, they should be cleaned up prior to retire
IFF_RENAMING.

> 

Best regards,
Zhenlei