[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <244dccd3-9c9d-0433-c341-ae17ee741a4e@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 09:21:38 -0500
From: Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@...hat.com>
To: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>,
Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/5] bonding: add new option ns_ip6_target
On 2/16/22 23:26, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/16/22 6:25 PM, Hangbin Liu wrote:
>>> For Bonding I think yes. Bonding has disallowed to config via
>> module_param.
>>> But there are still users using sysfs for bonding configuration.
>>>
>>> Jay, Veaceslav, please correct me if you think we can stop using sysfs.
>>>
>>
>> new features, new API only?
>
> I'm in agreement with this. I see no reason not to encourage
> standardization on iproute / netlink.
>
It was generally customary to include the iproute2 updates with the
series as well. That way they all got merged at the same time. I do not
see the needed iproute2 changes, is this still done?
Seems like it would be a requirement now if no other configuration
method is supported.
-Jon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists