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. _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
