From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Fastabend Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/8] bridge: bridge port parameters over netlink Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 18:33:29 -0700 Message-ID: <5091D169.9070302@intel.com> References: <20121030005731.843020405@vyatta.com> <20121030005835.289407930@vyatta.com> <50912F4D.2090602@intel.com> <20121031143020.62e08062@s6510.linuxnetplumber.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]:48412 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754479Ab2KABde (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Oct 2012 21:33:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20121031143020.62e08062@s6510.linuxnetplumber.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: [...] >> here I added nested bridge attributes to IFLA_AF_SPEC and pass them down >> to the drivers as needed. Should we merge these two sets so that we have >> only a single nested set of bridge attributes? Either in IFLA_AF_SPEC or >> IFLA_PROTINFO. >> [...] > > This is an area where there is no clear choice. > I would like to keep AF_UNSPEC for non-protocol stuff, > that is why I targeted PF_BRIDGE:IFLA_PROTINFO. > Works for me. > Other alternative would be to add sysctl which is less message > based, but is more general. (ie. /default and /all are available). > I would just assume use netlink seeing this is common for all the other networking bits and any networking app is already likely to be handling these events. .John