On 8/25/15 4:20 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 03:50:10PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
Hi all,
This patch series implements a L2 only interface concept which basically denies
any kind of IP address configuration on these interfaces, but still allows them
to be used as configuration end-points to keep using ethtool and friends.
A cleaner approach might be to finally come up with the concept of net_port
which a net_device would be a superset of, but this still raises tons of
questions as to whether we should be modifying userland tools to be able to
configure/query these interfaces. During all the switch talks/discussions last
year, it seemed to me like th L2-only interface is closest we have to a
"network port".
Comments, flames, flying tomatoes welcome!
Florian Fainelli (5):
net: add IFF_L2_ONLY flag
net: ipv4: Skip in_dev initialization for IFF_L2_ONLY interfaces
net: ipv6: Skip in6_dev initialization for IFF_L2_ONLY interfaces
interesting idea! Do you know how kernel/iproute2 will react to lack of in_dev?
No crashes I'm assuming, but what kind of errors are thrown?
imo great first step to have lightweight netdevs. +1 for 'net_port' in the
future.
I was looking a lightweight netdevice a couple of months ago --
bypassing procfs, sysfs and reducing the overall size of the net_device
struct (which needs to go on a diet). In my POC (which is not ready for
posting) I am using a link attribute (IFLA_LWT_NETDEV) as the trigger to
bypass devinet_sysctl_register for example.
In your case you are proposing an interface flag. Is the intention to
allow a run time change?
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
