On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > status. At the moment the only status is IFF_RUNNING in the ifi_flags.
> > So the question was could we use ifi_change to send the other pieces of
> > info
> No, of course. The question is really strange. :-)
> > If not, could we take advantage of that pad in the ifinfomsg?
> ifi_flags has lots of spare space, 16 bits.
Actually the extra flags are only valid when IFF_RUNNING is not set.
Maybe Stefan was pushing it to also want to flag tx operational failure ..
In any case please review his patch.
> And the second: IFF_RUNNING seems to be enough. Their "dormant" and
> "lowerLayerDown" are logically undistinuishable.
Some of those states are useless.
dormant may refer tothings like tunnel devices on top of physical
devices. Example that was given was a ipsec tunnel sending pings
lowerLayerDown is when you have multiple phyical devices under a
aggregator like bonding or maybe even VLAN; in that case if one of the
physical devices underneath being down would imply "lowerLayerDown" flag
on the aggregagator device. A second query would reveal which of the
underneath devices is down.