[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAB=NE6XR+FW2X2_nr2JAxgQD+zpm8=Xq7Y4fTf740rLhGCOzEw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 08:01:13 -0800
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>
To: Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@...rix.com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC v2 1/4] bridge: enable interfaces to opt out
from becoming the root bridge
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 5:02 AM, Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@...rix.com> wrote:
>> Agreed that's the best strategy and I'll work on sending patches to
>> brctl to enable the root_block preference. This approach however also
>
> I don't think brctl should deal with any Xen specific stuff. I assume there
> is a misunderstanding in this thread: when I (and possibly other Xen folks)
> talk about "userspace" or "toolstack" here, I mean Xen specific tools which
> use e.g. brctl to set up bridges. Not brctl itself.
I did mean brctl, but as I looked at the code it doesn't used
rtnl_open() and not sure if Stephen would want that. Additionally even
if it did handle root_block the other issue with this strategy is that
as you noted upon initialization the bridge, without a static MAC
address, could end up setting the backend as the root port, until you
let userspace turn the root_block knob.
Luis
--
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