From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bill Nottingham Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Allow full bridge configuration via sysfs Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 16:53:42 -0400 Message-ID: <20080707205342.GA19710@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <4872819E.3040604@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linux Netdev List To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:59024 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753509AbYGGUzZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 16:55:25 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4872819E.3040604@trash.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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? Also, moving bonding configuration to netlink seems like a step backwards. Bill