From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: bridge interface initial carrier state Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 22:06:05 +0100 Message-ID: <20130212210605.GA28929@minipsycho.orion> References: <1360612915.8633.6.camel@dcbw.foobar.com> <20130211135836.2220ca68@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Dan Williams , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from mail-ea0-f181.google.com ([209.85.215.181]:47259 "EHLO mail-ea0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753347Ab3BLVGK (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:06:10 -0500 Received: by mail-ea0-f181.google.com with SMTP id i13so224942eaa.12 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 13:06:09 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130211135836.2220ca68@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:58:36PM CET, stephen@networkplumber.org wrote: >On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:01:55 -0600 >Dan Williams wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'm wondering if the initial carrier state of 'on' is intentional for a >> bridge without ports; immediately after adding ports, the carrier is >> recalculated and depends on the combined state of each port's carrier >> and STP forwarding state. So a userspace program attempting to decide >> whether the bridge was usable or not has to look at both (a) how many >> ports are available and (b) bridge carrier state, instead of just >> looking at the bridge carrier state. >> >> Dan > >It really should be off when no ports are present, but some initial startup >scripts broke when it was that way. How so? Can you give me an example of that script? I think that any script should be able to handle a situation when carrier of some device is down... >-- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in >the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html