On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:03:53 -0700
"Jason R. Martin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Personally I think working to get the sysfs support finished in
> bonding and stop relying on module parameters to configure bonds would
> be better, since bonds will truly be independent of each other and be
> able to be added and removed on the fly. Having worked with a
> previous attempt to set per-bond values through module parameters
> (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=110558187800001&r=1&w=2), it's easy
> to get pretty crazy.
Agreed - that would be a better configuration interface, but I don't see
why we couldn't support module parameter arrays too. Especially since
the changes are minimal and don't break the ABI/ifenslave
compatibility/etc.
IMHO the "primary" semantics are completely broken right now and this
is a possible fix for it.
> For example, you can have more than one
> arp_ip_target, and they really should be per bond as well, so how do
> you divvy those up via module parameters?
Yup, arp_ip_target is one parameter which doesn't lend itself to this
scheme and this is exactly why the patch doesn't try to fix it.
Florin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |