From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4872838B.1060603@trash.net> Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:58:51 +0200 From: Patrick McHardy MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4872819E.3040604@trash.net> <20080707205342.GA19710@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20080707205342.GA19710@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Bridge] [RFC PATCH 0/2] Allow full bridge configuration via sysfs List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Patrick McHardy , bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linux Netdev List Bill Nottingham wrote: > Patrick McHardy (kaber@trash.net) said: >> Bill Nottingham wrote: >>> Right now, you can configure most bridge device parameters via sysfs. >>> However, you cannot either: >>> - add or remove bridge interfaces >>> - add or remove physical interfaces from a bridge >>> >>> The attached patch set rectifies this. With this patch set, brctl >>> (theoretically) becomes completely optional, much like ifenslave is >>> now for bonding. (In fact, the idea for this patch, and the syntax >>> used herein, is inspired by the sysfs bonding configuration.) >> Both should use netlink instead of extending their sysfs interfaces. >> For bridging I have a patch for the bridge device itself, the API >> is so far missing support for adding ports though. > > How does that improve the situation for bridge devices? Are all > bridging parameters (forward_delay, stp, etc.) going to be configurable > via netlink, or would we still then have multiple tools/interfaces > to configuration? Of course its all going to be configurable via netlink, otherwise it really wouldn't make sense. > Also, moving bonding configuration to netlink seems > like a step backwards. Please read up on what the standard interface for network configuration is, I'm tired of reiterating this once a week.