On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 12:15:30AM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote: > On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:11:40 +0100 > Laurent Vivier wrote: > > > From: Laurent Vivier > > > > Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier > > --- > > tap.c | 98 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------ > > tap.h | 7 +++++ > > 2 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-) > > I'm assuming that you need this patch to recycle those bits of "tap" > functions for usage in vhost-user code... which shows they actually > have little to do with tun/tap interfaces. > > But sure, we already have there stuff to deal with UNIX domain sockets, > so "tap" is already somewhat inconsistent. > > If use "tap" for a (long) moment to denote "anything guest/container > facing", then: We're definitely doing that at present. I am wondering with adding this third "tap" option that's even further from tuntap whether we should rethink that naming convention. I was contemplating something along the lines of "l2if" emphasizing that the thing in common is that it's a transport operating at L2 level, unlike the "sock" side operating at l4. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson