[Bridge] [RFC PATCH 0/2] Allow full bridge configuration via sysfs
notting at redhat.com
Mon Jul 7 14:34:20 PDT 2008
Patrick McHardy (kaber at trash.net) 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:
Module options, modprobe.conf, or 'distro-specific
configuration file', ifenslave, or sysfs.
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!
brctl (which uses ioctl and sysfs). And /etc/net.
Module parameters only, including the lovely 'load driver multiple times'
method. Doesn't even mention sysfs.
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:
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
More information about the Bridge