On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 11:19:32 -0800 si-wei liu <si-wei.liu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I have a vague idea: would it work to *not* set > > IFF_UP on slave devices at all? > Hmm, I ever thought about this option, and it appears this solution is > more invasive than required to convert existing scripts, despite the > controversy of introducing internal netdev state to differentiate user > visible state. Either we disallow slave to be brought up by user, or to > not set IFF_UP flag but instead use the internal one, could end up with > substantial behavioral change that breaks scripts. Consider any admin > script that does `ip link set dev ... up' successfully just assumes the > link is up and subsequent operation can be done as usual. While it *may* > work for dracut (yet to be verified), I'm a bit concerned that there are > more scripts to be converted than those that don't follow volatile > failover slave names. It's technically doable, but may not worth the > effort (in terms of porting existing scripts/apps). > > Thanks > -Siwei Won't work for most devices. Many devices turn off PHY and link layer if not IFF_UP _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
