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? Also, moving bonding configuration to netlink seems like a step backwards. Bill _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
