Le 04/05/2017 à 21:47, David Ahern a écrit : > 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. > Ok, thank you for the details.
I agree with Jiri that the name should be something different than lwt. Regards, Nicolas
