From: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:54:35 +0900

quoted text
> It seems to me that from a user point of view it may make more sense to:
> 
> a) propagate settings from the master to the slaves and;
> b) possibly disallow setting the slaves directly

Yeah, good question.

Propagation from master to slave(s) would have difficult semantics.
If any of the slave changes fail (f.e. unsupported feature or memory
allocation failure) we'd have to unwind all of the slaves which did
accept the change without error.

What if the unwind operation fails, due to lack of resources?  A lot
of state would thus need to be tracked to support this reasonably.

However we pretty much have to respect whatever changes get made
directly to the slaves, since the master must at all times claim
support for only the lowest common denominator, feature wise, amongst
that master's slaves.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html