search for: mlxsw1p2

...ot; prefix at all (I intentionally left it out in the this RFC patch to ask for comments on the namespace solution which is much cleaner). That said, an userpsace named device through udev may call something like ens3 and switch1-port2, but in the kernel-net namespace, it may look like ixgbevf0 and mlxsw1p2. So if we all agree introducing a new namespace is the rigth thing to do, `ip link' will no longer serve the purpose of displaying the information for kernel-net devnames for the sake of avoiding ambiguity and namespace collision: it's entirely possible the ip link name could collide with...

From: David Ahern <dsahern at gmail.com> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:21:54 -0600 > It is a netdev so there is no reason to have a separate ip command to > inspect it. 'ip link' is the right place. I agree on this. What I really don't understand still is the use case... really. So there are control netdevs, what exactly is the problem with that? Are we not exporting enough

From: David Ahern <dsahern at gmail.com> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:21:54 -0600 > It is a netdev so there is no reason to have a separate ip command to > inspect it. 'ip link' is the right place. I agree on this. What I really don't understand still is the use case... really. So there are control netdevs, what exactly is the problem with that? Are we not exporting enough