Patrick McHardy (kaber@xxxxxxxxx) said: >> Also, moving bonding configuration to netlink seems >> like a step backwards. > > Please read up on what the standard interface for network > configuration is OK, let's see. In the code: Hm, no TODO or FIXME. In the included documentation: Documentation/networking/bonding.txt: Module options, modprobe.conf, or 'distro-specific configuration file', ifenslave, or sysfs. Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.txt: sysctl, obviously. Documentation/networking/generic_netlink.txt Hey, here's netlink! Doucmentation points only to a wiki. Referred to by zero other included in-kernel documentation. Well, that's helpful. Let's try the OSDL web! http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/Net:Bridge brctl (which uses ioctl and sysfs). And /etc/net. http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/Net:Bonding Module parameters only, including the lovely 'load driver multiple times' method. Doesn't even mention sysfs. http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/Net:VLAN vconfig I could look at wireless network configuration, but I doubt that's going to help your argument. > I'm tired of reiterating this once a week. Well, if the documentation that described this as the standard existed, or wasn't such crap, perhaps you wouldn't have to. That being said, how is moving from adding a bonding slave from: echo "+eth0" > /sys/class/net/bond0/bonding/slaves to: to: http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/Net:Generic_Netlink_HOWTO a worthwhile improvement for the admin? Let's see, a kernel-userspace protocol with magic message formats. Hey, we reinvented ioctl! Why, if netlink is the standard (and it's been around for a long damn time), was sysfs configuration for bonding added in 2005? Why was bridge configuration added in 2005, and *extended* in 2006 and 2007? Why were the user-space tools such as brctl ported from ioctl to sysfs? Bill _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
