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

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 11:11 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [patch] xen udev rule interfering with 
> openvpn"):
> > So for vifname="foo" it is a no-brainer to call the vif "foo" and the
> > emulated tap device "foo-emu".
> > 
> > But what about the case where no vifname is given, in that case vif is
> > named "vif<DOM>.<DEV>". But what to call the tap? Previously I was
> > changing the name from tap<DOM>.<DEV> to xentap<DOM>.<DEV> but perhaps
> > now "vif<DOM>.<DEV>-emu" makes more sense/is more consistent?
> 
> I think either is fine.  While we're changing it it probably makes
> sense to use "vif..." as indeed it is more consistent.

OK, vifX.Y and vifX.Y-emu it is...

Ian.



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