Re: the virtual device management in eth-multiplexer

[olafBuddenhagen]

Hi,

On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 09:48:47PM +0100, olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 02:20:41AM +0000, Da Zheng wrote:

> > so maybe it is better to give up the idea that the directory where
> > eth-multiplexer sits is the place to show the status of devices and
> > allow the client to operate the device file just like the normal
> > file. for example, before accessing the device, the client has to
> > create a device with "touch eth0" and afterwards, destroy it with
> > "rm eth0".
> 
> I already considered such a possibility: allow explicitely creating
> static devices *in addition* to the dynamic ones... Though I wonder
> whether in this case it wouldn't be better simply to set up devnode
> instances explicitely.
> 
> In any case, I want to keep the dynamic nodes -- it's just much more
> convenient.
> 
> Without dynamic devices, we would need a way to store the device
> configuration permanently, so that we don't need to explicitely set it
> up before launching pfinet. This is possible, but I'm not sure whether
> it is really desirable...

I thought more about it, and realized that perhaps storing the
configuration permanently is not such a bad idea after all -- it is
closely related to something I have considered in other contexts in the
past: namely permanently storing translator hierarchies.

I would like to talk about that. Can you make it to the meeting this
friday? (It is rather urgent, as I'm considering making a GSoC task out
of it...)

-antrik-