[Bridge] Bridge code enhancement (link state detection) and bugfix. (patches included).

[Eble, Dan]

Adding an STP state seems like a bad idea.  Aren't br->stp_enabled and
(dev->flags & IFF_UP) sufficient to determine whether check_link()
should reenable a port?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: bridge-bounces at lists.osdl.org 
> [mailto:bridge-bounces at lists.osdl.org] On Behalf Of Mark Ruijter
> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 7:25 AM
> To: Stephen Hemminger
> Cc: bridge at lists.osdl.org
> Subject: Re: [Bridge] Bridge code enhancement (link state 
> detection) and bugfix. (patches included).
> 
> 
> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Could you split out the link state monitoring, and look at 
> bonding to see
> > how they are doing it?
> > 
> > I have a fix for vlan code that passes MII and ethtool 
> requests from the virtual
> > to physical device, so the bridge code wouldn't need to the 
> hack about root device.
> > 
> 
> Stephen,
> 
> I've attached two patches that implement link state monitoring as 
> described above.
> 
> De bridge-utils patch also fixes a small bug:
> 
> ./brctl stp TEST
> Segmentation fault
> 
> --
> Mark Ruijter.
> bridge at siennax.com
>