Adding an STP state seems like a bad idea. Aren't br->stp_enabled and (dev->flags & IFF_UP) sufficient to determine whether check_link() should reenable a port? > -----Original Message----- > From: bridge-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:bridge-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark Ruijter > Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 7:25 AM > To: Stephen Hemminger > Cc: bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [Bridge] Bridge code enhancement (link state > detection) and bugfix. (patches included). > > > Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > > > Could you split out the link state monitoring, and look at > bonding to see > > how they are doing it? > > > > I have a fix for vlan code that passes MII and ethtool > requests from the virtual > > to physical device, so the bridge code wouldn't need to the > hack about root device. > > > > Stephen, > > I've attached two patches that implement link state monitoring as > described above. > > De bridge-utils patch also fixes a small bug: > > ./brctl stp TEST > Segmentation fault > > -- > Mark Ruijter. > bridge@xxxxxxxxxxx >
