search for: iff_control

...at exactly is the problem with that? Are we not exporting enough information for applications to handle these devices sanely? If so, then's let add that information. We can set netdev->type to ETH_P_LINUXCONTROL or something like that. Another alternative is to add an interface flag like IFF_CONTROL or similar, and that probably is much nicer. Hiding the devices means that we acknowledge that applications are currently broken with control netdevs... and we want them to stay broken! That doesn't sound like a good plan to me. So let's fix handling of control netdevs instead of hiding...

...at exactly is the problem with that? Are we not exporting enough information for applications to handle these devices sanely? If so, then's let add that information. We can set netdev->type to ETH_P_LINUXCONTROL or something like that. Another alternative is to add an interface flag like IFF_CONTROL or similar, and that probably is much nicer. Hiding the devices means that we acknowledge that applications are currently broken with control netdevs... and we want them to stay broken! That doesn't sound like a good plan to me. So let's fix handling of control netdevs instead of hiding...

...ontrol netdev, cpu port, whatever) > to pull packets from the ASIC and deliver to virtual netdevices > representing physical ports. The master netdev should not be mucked with > by a user. It should be ignored by certain s/w with lldpd as just an > *example*. Two approaches: 1) Add an IFF_CONTROL and make userspace understand this. It is probably long overdue. 2) Design the driver properly. Have a non-netdev master device like mlxsw does, and control it using devlink or similar. This is exactly how this stuff was meant to be architected. > From there I think you are confusi...

...hat? > > Are we not exporting enough information for applications to handle > these devices sanely? If so, then's let add that information. > > We can set netdev->type to ETH_P_LINUXCONTROL or something like that. > > Another alternative is to add an interface flag like IFF_CONTROL or > similar, and that probably is much nicer. > > Hiding the devices means that we acknowledge that applications are > currently broken with control netdevs... and we want them to stay > broken! > > That doesn't sound like a good plan to me. > > So let's fix hand...