As in the case of Stefan, only the negative comments: 1) I think we need to separate the oper state from the rest; so no need to add dormant to be in netdev_state_t.
2) Events need only be generated from/to down state 3) IFF_WAIT is not needed. A device goes from NOTPRESENT to DOWN; and may go to DORMANT if there is a protocol negotiation needed. In other words, DORMANT is a "healthy" state really. On the positive side: I think the IFF_XXX flags that you have are the way to go. Stefan's approach to dev->operstate_kernel is the way to go for kernel side. We need something similar to net/core/dev.c::dev_open/close or change flags to get things transfered between kernel/user. Refer to my comments to Stefan. So to me, both of you have something positive towards a unified patch. Big question: Can you guys - if you agree on my comments - produce a unified patch? I think i have comments on the state transitions, but it will be more appropriate to make them when theres one patch existing. Thoughts? cheers, jamal On Mon, 2005-14-11 at 21:13 +0100, Thomas Graf wrote: > > My suggestion is at this point to ignore any L3 issues and have people > > post their patches. RFC 2863 states MUST be taken into consideration. > > Proper naming must be taken into account. > > Split up in 3 patches, not implementing the bits allowing userspace to > trigger leaving dormant state. > > [NET]: Support dormant interface state - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
