vioif vs if_vio

[Paul Goyette]

Shouldn't the vioif(4) device be more properly named if_vio(4), to be
consistent with other network interfaces?

With its current name, it could never successfully exist as an
auto-loaded kernel module, since the auto-load code assumes the if_
prefix!


+------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
| Paul Goyette | PGP Key fingerprint: | E-mail addresses: |
| (Retired) | FA29 0E3B 35AF E8AE 6651 | paul at whooppee.com |
| Kernel Developer | 0786 F758 55DE 53BA 7731 | pgoyette at netbsd.org |
+------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+

[Thor Lancelot Simon]

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 02:02:16PM +0800, Paul Goyette wrote:
> Shouldn't the vioif(4) device be more properly named if_vio(4), to be
> consistent with other network interfaces?

I think the code was imported with the same filenames as its original
source, to ease merging of updates.

> With its current name, it could never successfully exist as an auto-loaded
> kernel module, since the auto-load code assumes the if_ prefix!

Sounds like a bug in the auto-load code.

Thor

[Paul Goyette]

More like a design feature! Referencing the "tun" in ifconfig will
auto-load the if_tun module, for example.

In any case, it appears that while the autoconfig name for the virtual
I/O device's network interface is vioif, the actual interface name is
if_vio which means it will "just work" when it gets modularized. This
is consistent after all, and to assert otherwise was an error on my
part.