From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stefan Rompf Subject: Re: Patch resubmission: RFC2863 operstatus for 2.5.50 Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 10:44:58 +0100 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <3DEDCE9A.61FDEBBC@isg.de> References: <3DE33D6D.25B9C9B4@isg.de> <20021126.021546.91313706.davem@redhat.com> <3DED2EA9.D812C881@isg.de> <3DED51E9.1080408@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "David S. Miller" , netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Jeff Garzik Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Hi, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Pardon my dumb question, but what parts of RFC2863 require kernel > additions over and above your link state patch? the kernel does not know LOWERLAYERDOWN, TESTING, DORMANT, UNKNOWN. They can be useful when drivers adopt to this scheme. > Your second patch I am less enthusiastic about than the first... :( Well, with your opinion I count two against two: I want it, Jamal has proposed the semantics, and Alexey doesn't want to waste a single bit of a netlink message for this. What now? Stefan