Re: [Xen-devel] [patch] xen udev rule interfering with openvpn

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 11:55 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [patch] xen udev rule interfering with 
> openvpn"):
> > On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 11:38 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > >   Are we
> > > sure that this isn't going to break some existing setup where the name
> > > is already using most of the available length ?
> > 
> > On the contrary I'm fairly sure it will break them... How common they
> > would be I can't say (other than my gut feeling being "not very").
> > 
> > Not sure what our options are here. Perhaps in the grant Unix tradition
> > of dropping vowels and random consonants "xtp-". Or perhaps "emu-" (for
> > emulated)?
> 
> I'm not quite up to speed with all the context here but is the reason
> that you're not suggesting "xen-" is that that's already used for
> something else ?

This is to distinguish the vif device from the associated tap device,
which would otherwise both be called whatever the user gave as "vifname"
in their config, so for vifname=foo you would get foo (the PV one) and
xen-foo (the EMU one) which does the job but doesn't really distinguish
them.

Ian.

> 
> > This still adds a new 4 char prefix in the xl case but xend already had
> > that behaviour so hopefully people haven't come to rely on it in the
> > meantime.
> 
> I think that's a fair enough assumption.
> 
> Ian.



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel