From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nivedita Singhvi Subject: Reverting bridge/antispoofing param removal Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 01:14:18 -0700 Message-ID: <4361DDDA.7070600@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Xen development list List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org While cleaning up some other stuff in this area, I looked into a problem Sean Dague ran into - he was specifying br0 as the bridge name in xend-config.spx and it was still using the original default xenbr0. When the bridge name is specified in the network-bridge script, it is created correctly (ditto anti-spoofing). A recent patchset: http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-changelog/2005-10/msg00305.html removed the parameters vif-bridge and anti-spoofing from the xend/vifctl.py as the script was allowing them to be configured. The config file still has the examples, however, which results in the user setting those parameters in xend-config.spx futilely. The actual parameter that is used is the default (unless overridden in the script). The intent seems to be to allow the user to configure it in the script, and avoid the redundancy of overriding via xend. Would you rather have a patch that removes the example from the xend-config.spx script, so as not to confuse the user (but this would need sanitizing xend to use the right params) or restore the original piece of code? It latter worked well before, you could set it in one place and have it be seen by script and xend. I had both in test, will send off whichever is desirable when I get in tmrw.. thanks, Nivedita