Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Allow full bridge configuration via sysfs

[Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>]

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.