From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: Vlan interface nuisance Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 06:41:49 +0000 Message-ID: <20090303064149.GA4154@ff.dom.local> References: <20090301204731.40ce346a@nehalam> <20090302172057.GA23247@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <49AC2A9C.5090303@gmail.com> <49AC545E.3090708@trash.net> <20090302223011.GA3388@ami.dom.local> <49AC6D24.1030605@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Lennart Sorensen , Stephen Hemminger , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: Received: from mail-bw0-f178.google.com ([209.85.218.178]:61883 "EHLO mail-bw0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757341AbZCCGl4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Mar 2009 01:41:56 -0500 Received: by bwz26 with SMTP id 26so2231568bwz.37 for ; Mon, 02 Mar 2009 22:41:53 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49AC6D24.1030605@trash.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 12:35:00AM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: > Jarek Poplawski wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 10:49:18PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: >>> The binding is displayed when listing interfaces. This hole >>> argument is silly, if you want a particular name, just specify >>> it. The current naming schemes are entirely based on information >>> that you have to specify anyways. >> >> Just for the record, I don't agree with calling "this" argument silly >> just like it was with "that" argument. Actually, I think they are >> both so "right" that I've changed my mind and think it's great each >> tool does it differently... > > I'm not sure whether I'm supposed to understand this, so I'm going > to respond with something useful unrelated to naming user resources > that every virtual device author should know (and that seems to be > not well known): > > Every virtual device bound to a different device should set the > dev->iflink field to the ifindex of the device bound to. This > makes every device related netlink message include this relation. > If the binding is already known at device-creation time and > relevant for the virtuals device's existance, this must be done > in the ->init callback to make sure its already included in the > first netlink creation message to avoid inconsistent information. > > This is the also the prefered way device bindings should be > signaled to the kernel, and at least iproute and libnl are > aware of this in both directions. And to get back to the main > point of this discussion: > > # ip l l > 4: vlan0@dummy0: mtu 1500 qdisc noop state DOWN > link/ether 92:2a:4f:ae:dc:29 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff Yes, very interesting arguments for another disussion... But if we're talking about naming than you seem to ignore what Lennart, Ben, Denys and probably Stephen said about their preferred way, and I think it matters, because if they had problems with understanding this change I can only imagine what "common users" would say without knowing all this technical rationale (which IMHO is disputable too - names are for people). Jarek P.