Patrick McHardy (kaber@trash.net) said: 
quoted text
> Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> Right now, you can configure most bridge device parameters via sysfs.
>> However, you cannot either:
>> - add or remove bridge interfaces
>> - add or remove physical interfaces from a bridge
>>
>> The attached patch set rectifies this. With this patch set, brctl
>> (theoretically) becomes completely optional, much like ifenslave is
>> now for bonding. (In fact, the idea for this patch, and the syntax
>> used herein, is inspired by the sysfs bonding configuration.)
>
> Both should use netlink instead of extending their sysfs interfaces.
> For bridging I have a patch for the bridge device itself, the API
> is so far missing support for adding ports though.

How does that improve the situation for bridge devices? Are all
bridging parameters (forward_delay, stp, etc.) going to be configurable
via netlink, or would we still then have multiple tools/interfaces
to configuration? Also, moving bonding configuration to netlink seems
like a step backwards.

Bill
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/