On Wed, 2005-07-12 at 09:05 +0100, Thomas Graf wrote: > The implementation of the rule "if admin status down operational status > should be down" only exists in the sysfs code. I would absolutely favour > one clear interface representing the operational status of an interface. > > The transition from DOWN -> DORMANT: > 1) responsible system puts up the lower layer and sends out > notification. > 2) rfc2863_policy() catches this up and sets operstate to DORMANT. > > Between 1) and 2) a lot can happen, f.e. vlan_transfer_operstate which > would see the lower layer as UP when it is supposed to be DORMANT. This > is not just a small theoretical race we can live with, a lost > notification would imply transitions not taking place etc. Having such > essential transitions taking place async is a big no-go to me. >
The question is: How is this different, conceptually, from any other flag setting being lost - for example a promisc or admin up/down? In other words if you want to reliably transmit state, shouldnt the "responsible system" have to worry about the reliability? I will let Stefan address the other questions. This specific one was brought up by Krzysztof as well and the discussion went on a tangent. cheers, jamal - 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
