[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1316553160.1783.112.camel@dcbw.foobar.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:12:39 -0500
From: Dan Williams <dcbw@...hat.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, shemminger@...tta.com
Subject: Re: bridge carrier issue
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 15:29 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> I'm marking the patches in patchwork on this as "deferred".
>
> It is my opinion that we need to push back on the virtualization stuff
> because otherwise it is impossible for network manager and friends to
> operate properly.
>
> Without the carrier going on only when a device is actually attached
> and operating, NM has no "signal" to know when it actually should do
> DHCP and whatnot.
There's stuff we're planning for NM that'll make it much more friendly
to these use-cases, but that's mostly *after* the interface is
configured and running. What the semantics of the bring-up behavior
should be need more discussion. ie, in the case we're talking about
here, NM wouldn't even apply a static IP configuration to the bridge
until the bridge said it was up. That's something we can change with a
flag in the bridge's config.
Dan
> On the other hand, the virtualization tools and libraries can operate
> properly within the constraints added by the carrier behavior we have
> now.
>
> And I also believe they can do so in a way that allows them to work
> on kernels before the carrier change.
>
> Therefore, the only way to move forward and get everything working is
> to change the virtualization tools.
> --
> 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
--
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