From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] xen udev rule interfering with openvpn
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:14:40 +0100
Message-ID: <1335348880.28015.24.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1204141534100.30192@vega-b.dur.ac.uk>
	<1334658395.23948.6.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
	<CAEwRVpP47=mKrcZ_5ATZga4wvkMaSysPh-BEfRorcxrCJ7W6pg@mail.gmail.com>
	<1334817587.11493.44.camel@dagon.hellion.org.uk>
	<1334912603.28331.2.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
	<20369.15528.270106.567037@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
	<1334918900.28331.47.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
	<20369.16555.46229.798603@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
	<1334919613.28331.53.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
	<20369.17085.330843.561841@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
	<1335347949.28015.19.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
	<20375.52677.287182.934829@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <20375.52677.287182.934829@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>, Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@citrix.com>, Teck Choon Giam <giamteckchoon@gmail.com>, M A Young <m.a.young@durham.ac.uk>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 11:11 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [patch] xen udev rule interfering with openvpn"):
> > So for vifname="foo" it is a no-brainer to call the vif "foo" and the
> > emulated tap device "foo-emu".
> > 
> > But what about the case where no vifname is given, in that case vif is
> > named "vif<DOM>.<DEV>". But what to call the tap? Previously I was
> > changing the name from tap<DOM>.<DEV> to xentap<DOM>.<DEV> but perhaps
> > now "vif<DOM>.<DEV>-emu" makes more sense/is more consistent?
> 
> I think either is fine.  While we're changing it it probably makes
> sense to use "vif..." as indeed it is more consistent.

OK, vifX.Y and vifX.Y-emu it is...

Ian.