> > I don't like the bridge-stp <bridge> start/stop interface. Why > would bridge-stp know what bridge to run RTSP on? A more natural > way, IMHO, would to extend brctl with a "rstp on" method. Why > is there one rstpctl tool and one brctl tool? I wrote rstpctl to just control the rstp daemon. Should integrate it with brctl, making it so that brctl checks whether kernel STP or RSTP is being used and sets either kernel STP config or sends the config to rstpd as appropriate. I haven't gotten around to that. I don't like bridge-stp scheme too much either, especially after realizing the RTNL lock limitation, but it is just enough to get things working if we don't try to start rstpd from within it (though the sample does that.) Given the amount of trouble bridge-stp seems to cause, I should probably work on a different kernel interface for indicating userspace stp. _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
