| To: | David Brownell <david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [patch] Link state reporting |
| From: | Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:52:17 +0100 |
| Cc: | Brad Hards <bhards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, becker@xxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <0d5601c1769a$0dad8000$6800000a@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; from david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx on Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 08:47:35AM -0800 |
| References: | <3C0234A5.767256DF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <0d5601c1769a$0dad8000$6800000a@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 08:47:35AM -0800, David Brownell wrote: > How about simpler reporting and labeling? > Specifically: > > - 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. Yes, that's needed, too. -- Vojtech Pavlik SuSE Labs |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [patch] Link state reporting, Jeff Garzik |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: what pointers does pskb_may_pull() nuke?, Michael Richardson |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [patch] Link state reporting, Jeff Garzik |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [patch] Link state reporting, Jeff Garzik |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |