[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D748CC3.8060603@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 08:44:03 +0100
From: Nicolas de Pesloüan
<nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen.hemminger@...tta.com>
CC: Adam Majer <adamm@...bino.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
"Pekka Savola (ipv6)" <pekkas@...core.fi>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Issue NETDEV_CHANGE notification when bridge changes
state
Le 07/03/2011 07:41, Stephen Hemminger a écrit :
>
>> On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 09:45:41AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>> Since this a generic problem, it needs a better solution.
>>> Sending NETDEV_CHANGE impacts lots of other pieces, and even
>>> user space has similar problems.
>>
>> It does seem a little broad notification type. I've checked over
>> all the currently defined NETDEV notifiers, and it seems that
>> NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEERS may be a better option to use when bridge
>> has a potential topology change.
>>
>> Currently it is only used in ipv4/devinet.c: where it is used to issue
>> a gratuitous ARP.
>
> I was thinking of fixing bridge to not actually bring the link
> up until in forwarding mode. Other applications (DHCP, etc)
> see the link up and really don't like being in half duplex
> during that period.
I think it is the right way to manage this situation. And bonding should behave the same, if not
already true.
Nicolas.
--
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