[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20150825.171248.291365392844717283.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 17:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: f.fainelli@...il.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, andrew@...n.ch, linux@...ck-us.net,
jiri@...nulli.us, sfeldma@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] net: L2 only interfaces
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:50:10 -0700
> This patch series implements a L2 only interface concept which
> basically denies any kind of IP address configuration on these
> interfaces, but still allows them to be used as configuration
> end-points to keep using ethtool and friends.
>
> A cleaner approach might be to finally come up with the concept of
> net_port which a net_device would be a superset of, but this still
> raises tons of questions as to whether we should be modifying
> userland tools to be able to configure/query these
> interfaces. During all the switch talks/discussions last year, it
> seemed to me like th L2-only interface is closest we have to a
> "network port".
>
> Comments, flames, flying tomatoes welcome!
Interesting, indeed.
Do you plan to extend this to defining a more minimal network device
sub-type as well?
Then we can pass "net_device_common" or whatever around as a common
base type of actual net device "implementations".
Or is you main goal just getting the L2-only semantic?
--
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