Re: [patch net-next 0/4] net: allow to change carrier from userspace
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Date: 2012-12-14 14:41:40
Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 07:20:51PM CET, shemminger@vyatta.com wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:17:33 -0200 Flavio Leitner [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:09:33 -0800 Stephen Hemminger [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:54:23 -0200 Flavio Leitner [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
I am saying this because people are used to and there are scripts out there using something like: # ethtool <iface> | grep 'Link' to react an interface failure.Then the script is broken. It is asking about hardware state.I was talking about the team master interface, so it makes sense to check its 'hardware' state. Just think on 'bond0' interface with no slaves. It should report Link detected: no. See bond_release(), what happens if bond->slave_cnt == 0, for instance.I was thinking more that ethtool operation for reporting link on the team device should use the proper check rather than just using netif_carrier_ok(), the team ethtool operation for get_link should be check IFF_RUNNING flag in dev->flags which is controlled by operstate transistions.
I admit I'm bit confused now. For example in bridge code: in br_add_if() - netif_carrier_ok() is checked and by the value it is decided if br_stp_enable_port() is called or not. Wouldn't it make more sense to check IFF_RUNNING (or netif_oper_up()) here? The reason I'm asing is that if team device is in bridge, carrier is always ON and I'm fiddling with IF_OPER_UP and IF_OPER_DORMANT from userspace, in current code, bridge wouldn't know the difference... There are more exmaples of similar usage of netif_carrier_ok() in bridge (called on ports), bonding (called on slaves), team code (called on ports).