On 5/4/17 1:10 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote: > 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?
Definitely. Maybe I can find some time this weekend.
