-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
RFC: use continuous interface identifiers #4852
Comments
If we do this only for the user representation this should be alright I guess. Stack-internally the PIDs should still be the identifier to prevent multiple lookups and to keep them consistent to netapi. But then the documentation needs to be very precise about this dualism. Otherwise it's getting confusing, too. |
(also: I would prefer hard-coded names, when it comes to intuitive (i.e. human readable) identifiers). lwIP uses 2 letters (set by driver) plus a digit (set by initialization order). This way we also don't have to "invent" names if we ever want to support POSIX's |
Yes, I was talking only about the user/application interface - and I would stick to the number, especially since it comes without any overhead. |
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. If you want me to ignore this issue, please mark it with the "State: don't stale" label. Thank you for your contributions. |
This will become a must, if network interfaces are e.g. identified by pointers (e.g. with #9903) |
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. If you want me to ignore this issue, please mark it with the "State: don't stale" label. Thank you for your contributions. |
@leandrolanzieri @jia200x can you please look into this? |
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. If you want me to ignore this issue, please mark it with the "State: don't stale" label. Thank you for your contributions. |
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. If you want me to ignore this issue, please mark it with the "State: don't stale" label. Thank you for your contributions. |
IMO, this can be closed as wontfix. In the GNRC stack the advantage of using more human readable identifiers doesn't justify the overhead, and with lwip identifiers are already human readable. If anyone disagrees, please reopen. |
The current solution using the driver's PID as an identifier for a network interface is a bit uninituitive and very dependent on the actual application. Since these PIDs are stored in an array anyway, using the array index for the identifier instead, would make the identifiers continuous and persistent over all applications on the same board (as long as we don't change the initialization code).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: