[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [patch] Link state reporting

To: Brad Hards <bhards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, vojtech@xxxxxxx, becker@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [patch] Link state reporting
From: David Brownell <david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:47:35 -0800
References: <3C0234A5.767256DF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
How about simpler reporting and labeling?

    - single header line, "interface status\n" (or none)
    - simpler status: "%s %s\n", dev->name and "up" or"down

Easier for programs to work with that way.  Example:
the "ifup" scripts for "usbnet" links would be simpler,
at least for the links that can detect peer presence.
(It's likely too much to change just now to tristate
status:  up, down, and "can't tell".)

Leading to an issue I've raised before:  don't we need
to see more active link state reporting too?  Along
the lines of running "/sbin/hotplug net up" (or down)
to report INTERFACE= going up or down.

- Dave

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brad Hards" <bhards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <vojtech@xxxxxxx>; <becker@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 4:25 AM
Subject: [patch] Link state reporting

> In a momentary fit of coding over designing, I copied some vaguely related
> code and made a link state reporting proc interface. I also patched a couple
> of drivers (USB CATC and PCMCIA 3c574) to give me something to test with.
> Here is what the /proc interface looks like, this example showing what happens
> when you disconnect the crossover cable between the two test devices:
> Inter-| Link 
>  face | Status
>     lo:Link Good
>   eth0:Link Good
>   eth1:Link Failed
>   eth2:Link Failed
> Any comments or thoughts on this?
> Brad

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>