From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laszlo Attila Toth Subject: Re: Resend: [IPROUTE2 PATCH] Interface group as new ip link option Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:05:40 +0200 Message-ID: <47149B04.30607@balabit.hu> References: <1192531516.4480.33.camel@localhost> Reply-To: panther@balabit.hu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: hadi@cyberus.ca Return-path: Received: from www.balabit.hu ([212.92.18.33]:55200 "EHLO lists.balabit.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757395AbXJPLFq (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Oct 2007 07:05:46 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1192531516.4480.33.camel@localhost> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org jamal =EDrta: > On Tue, 2007-16-10 at 11:03 +0200, Laszlo Attila Toth wrote: >> Interfaces can be grouped and each group has an unique positive inte= ger ID. >> It can be set via ip link. >=20 > Feature request: Can you also implement a get operation. Perhaps > something that returns from the kernel a list of ifindices when one > passes a group to it? That sounds great but for what whould you like to use? It may help me=20 for the implementation. Currently it is not available since the the=20 net_device structure holds the group id and for this get operation an=20 iteration (of net_devices) may be necessary... >=20 > BTW, does it make sense to have one interface in multiple groups? We didn't want to use multiple groups in favour of masked group ids.=20 What kind of usage needs other implementation? -- Attila