Even with the route, the destination can remain "fixed".
The VCC only makes sense in the context of the device, which
is fully visible to the user. (It's different in the case of
SVCs, but they're managed by a user space demon. Besides, if
their device goes away, they die too.)
> And those are
> similarly configured, and to me the same rules apply.
Why do you care ? That part of the current design is
technically adequate and reasonably simple. Littering the
code with asynchronous code paths would only make it more
complex.
(If you want to keep Chas busy, the communication between
the kernel and its demons may be a much more interesting
topic ;-)
- Werner
-- _________________________________________________________________________ / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina wa@almesberger.net / /_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/