Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 07:37:49PM CEST, davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >From: David Ahern <dsahern@xxxxxxxxx> >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:21:54 -0600 > >> It is a netdev so there is no reason to have a separate ip command to >> inspect it. 'ip link' is the right place. > >I agree on this. > >What I really don't understand still is the use case... really. > >So there are control netdevs, what exactly is the problem with that? > >Are we not exporting enough information for applications to handle >these devices sanely? If so, then's let add that information. > >We can set netdev->type to ETH_P_LINUXCONTROL or something like that. > >Another alternative is to add an interface flag like IFF_CONTROL or >similar, and that probably is much nicer. > >Hiding the devices means that we acknowledge that applications are >currently broken with control netdevs... and we want them to stay >broken! > >That doesn't sound like a good plan to me. > >So let's fix handling of control netdevs instead of hiding them. Exactly. Don't workaround userspace issues by kernel patches. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
