[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080710023429.GB24665@nostromo.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 22:34:29 -0400
From: Bill Nottingham <notting@...hat.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: kaber@...sh.net, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Allow full bridge configuration via sysfs
David Miller (davem@...emloft.net) said:
> > Why, if netlink is the standard (and it's been around for a long
> > damn time), was sysfs configuration for bonding added in 2005? Why
> > was bridge configuration added in 2005, and *extended* in 2006 and
> > 2007? Why were the user-space tools such as brctl ported from ioctl
> > to sysfs?
>
> Because often a lot of shit slips in when someone who understands
> the ramifications is too busy or on vacation.
Duly noted, will time all patch submissions to land during your
vacations in the future.
More seriously, if there's not a mechanism to prevent ABIs the
kernel doesn't want like this being added, that's a problem.
> We do want everything to be netlink based.
>
> Why?
>
> Because it means that you can run one monitoring tool to listen
> for netlink events and report them to the user for diagnosis.
>
> It means that network configuration events can be sent over
> the wire and used remotely at some point.
>
> The latter can never happen as long as we keep adding ad-hoc
> config stuff.
Sure, but it does make them more opaque to the normal user,
leaving them wrapped in the same old ip/brctl/ifenslave/vconfig
tools - for better or worse, people like the discoverability
and obviousness of sysfs.
Bill
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists