jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1) I dont think operstare_useroverride is needed.
I don't either. We should ask potential users, though - doing things we think are best but nobody is going to use is nonsense. > a) We need new flags which get reflected to user space; i.e new IFF_XXX > flags. DOWN/UP are already being reflected by IFF_RUNNING. We need > LOWERLAYERDOWN and DORMANT; i am not sure if we need to represent to > TESTING, UNKNOWN and NOT_PRESENT. I wonder if IFF_DEBUG can be used for > TESTING state. So why do you want this all SNMP in the kernel (with all the problems)? Just to convert it to bits, send to userspace, and convert back to SNMP? Of course, if we do SNMP in the kernel, we should export it as-is to userspace. While we can have obsolete interface we don't usually add new things to it, do we? > b) I think we need the dev->operstate_kernel to behave in a similar > manner as dev->state. Despite that we already have rtnl_lock at that > point Not sure if rtnl requirement for changing device carrier status etc. is reasonable. Jeff? David? > it will be consistent to use the set/clear_bit etc. Then we don't change anything (except adding flag(s)). That's what I wanted from the beginning BTW. -- Krzysztof Halasa - 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
