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

[Patrick McHardy]

Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Patrick McHardy (kaber@xxxxxxxxx) 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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/