[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:58:51 +0200
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Allow full bridge configuration via sysfs
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Patrick McHardy (kaber@...sh.net) said:
>> Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>> Right now, you can configure most bridge device parameters via sysfs.
>>> However, you cannot either:
>>> - add or remove bridge interfaces
>>> - add or remove physical interfaces from a bridge
>>>
>>> The attached patch set rectifies this. With this patch set, brctl
>>> (theoretically) becomes completely optional, much like ifenslave is
>>> now for bonding. (In fact, the idea for this patch, and the syntax
>>> used herein, is inspired by the sysfs bonding configuration.)
>> Both should use netlink instead of extending their sysfs interfaces.
>> For bridging I have a patch for the bridge device itself, the API
>> is so far missing support for adding ports though.
>
> How does that improve the situation for bridge devices? Are all
> bridging parameters (forward_delay, stp, etc.) going to be configurable
> via netlink, or would we still then have multiple tools/interfaces
> to configuration?
Of course its all going to be configurable via netlink, otherwise
it really wouldn't make sense.
> Also, moving bonding configuration to netlink seems
> like a step backwards.
Please read up on what the standard interface for network
configuration is, I'm tired of reiterating this once a week.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists