Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

bridge: be consistent about PVID terminology
ClosedPublic

Authored by ivy on Jul 6 2025, 6:34 PM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Oct 11, 3:13 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Fri, Oct 10, 8:40 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Fri, Oct 10, 8:23 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Fri, Oct 10, 8:23 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Fri, Oct 10, 8:23 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Fri, Oct 10, 8:23 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Fri, Oct 10, 8:23 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Fri, Oct 10, 2:57 PM

Details

Summary

The PVID option is exposed to the user as 'untagged', but the API was
inconsistent on whether it's called 'untagged' or 'PVID'. Standardise
on calling it PVID everywhere in the code, since this is the 802.1Q
terminology.

Keep 'untagged' as the user-facing term since sysadmins are not network
admins and are often not familiar with the term PVID.

Diff Detail

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

Event Timeline

ivy requested review of this revision.Jul 6 2025, 6:34 PM

rebase on main and move out of the bridge stack so this can be landed quicker.

sys/net/if_bridge.c
259–260

”port port vlan identifier”?

sys/net/if_bridge.c
259–260

on the one hand i appreciate we should avoid "PIN number" constructs, but i wonder if it isn't useful to be somewhat explicit here.

perhaps "if PVID"?

remove the bif_pvid comment

it's obvious from what it is, since it has the type ether_vlanid_t and is
literally called "bif_pvid".

we have reached a compromise on the matter of PIN numbers

This revision was not accepted when it landed; it landed in state Needs Review.Jul 28 2025, 5:27 PM
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.