Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

wtap(4): Rename physical interface
ClosedPublic

Authored by enweiwu on Jul 8 2022, 5:07 AM.

Details

Summary

Planned commit message:

wtap(4): Rename physical interface

The original physical interface created by wtap is "wlan%d", which will confuse us with the vap created by ifconfig which also named "wlan%d". Rename the physical interface to "wtap%d".

This diff depends on D35624.

Diff Detail

Repository
rG FreeBSD src repository
Lint
Lint Not Applicable
Unit
Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

enweiwu created this revision.
enweiwu edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)

why? it's designed to be used as an emulator / virtual 802.11 interface for building tests. :-) So it should be wlanX.

why? it's designed to be used as an emulator / virtual 802.11 interface for building tests. :-) So it should be wlanX.

But we still need to create a wlan interface to use it so the full commands are like:

./wtap c 0
ifconfig wlan0 create wlandev wlan0 wlanmode mesh

Then we have a wlan0 with parent wlan0, looks a bit odd to me. That's why I suggest to do this change. But this could be my misunderstanding, if so, sorry for the noise.

enweiwu retitled this revision from Rename physical interface to [wtap] Rename physical interface.Jul 8 2022, 6:54 AM
lwhsu requested changes to this revision.Jul 8 2022, 8:44 AM
lwhsu added inline comments.
sys/dev/wtap/wtap_hal/hal.c
186

I think this is the only part you want to submit, others are already committed in cf337fcd7413486d6c7fc0529d76fefb63597d0e. Please rebase your patch onto the latest main branch.

This revision now requires changes to proceed.Jul 8 2022, 8:44 AM
enweiwu retitled this revision from [wtap] Rename physical interface to wtap(4): Rename physical interface.
enweiwu edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)

oh! hm!

I wonder if this is how it used to be in the deep, distant past. ok, this is right!

This revision was not accepted when it landed; it landed in state Needs Review.Jul 8 2022, 5:45 PM
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.

oh! hm!

I wonder if this is how it used to be in the deep, distant past. ok, this is right!

Even in a deep distant past, this wasn't right; someone just knew what they were doing. Sadly there isn't much/any documentation from that time when the code was committed, is there?