On 05/04/2017 09:37 AM, David Ahern wrote: > On 5/4/17 9:15 AM, Nicolas Dichtel wrote: >> Le 24/02/2017 à 16:52, David Ahern a écrit : >>> On 2/23/17 8:12 PM, David Miller wrote: >>>> This really need to be a fundamental facility, so that it transparently >>>> works for NetworkManager, router daemons, everything. Not just iproute2 >>>> and "ls". >>> >>> I'll rebase my patch and send out as RFC. >>> >> David, did you finally send those patches? >> > > No, but for a few reasons. > > It is easy to hide devices in a dump: > > https://github.com/dsahern/linux/commit/48a80a00eac284e58bae04af10a5a932dd7aee00 > > > But I think those devices should also not exist in sysfs or procfs which > overlaps what I would like to see for lightweight netdevices: > > https://github.com/dsahern/linux/commit/70574be699cf252e77f71e3df11192438689f976
Interesting that does indeed solve the same problems as the L2 only patch set intended. I am not exactly sure if hiding the devices from procfs/sysfs would be appropriate in my case (dumb L2 only switch that only does 802.1q for instance), but why not. > > > and to be complete, hidden devices should not be allowed to have a > network address or transmit packets which is the L2 only intent from > Florian: > https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg340808.html > Do you plan on submitting the LWT patch set at some point? -- Florian
