[PATCH 2/2] iproute2: add support for link set
marek.behun at nic.cz
Sat Jan 22 08:39:45 PST 2022
On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 09:38:01 +0000
Rui Salvaterra <rsalvaterra at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, Ansuel,
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 at 01:08, Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth at gmail.com> wrote:
> > So.. how should we proceed with this? From what I understand the idea is to merge this ASAP.
> But not a moment sooner. ;) I'm sure we agree that this patch won't be
> merged upstream in its current form, according to the comments
> received, and the less we diverge from upstream, the better for
> > Think we have to change this with the DSA specific attribute.
> Ok, let's step back and take a look at our possibilities. Stephen
> Hemminger suggested auditing all kernel usage of IFLA_LINK and adding
> checks where needed to make sure the current users don't break .
> This would certainly work, but that would mean sprinkling error checks
> in possibly quite a number of places . Vladimir Oltean, instead,
> suggested creating a new netlink attribute for this specific purpose
>  (let's call it IFLA_CPU, for example). I believe the latter is the
> less intrusive of the options, with the added bonus of not having to
> overload IFLA_LINK with different semantics (something I personally
> dislike). I would also rename "link" to "cpu" in the ip patch
> (avoiding the overload, once again).
>  https://email@example.com/
>  https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/A/ident/IFLA_LINK
>  https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20210411170939.cxmva5vdcpqu4bmi@skbuf/
I am pessimistic about this being resolved soon in upstream, so my
suggestion to you for OpenWRT is to do something that can be used now,
for example a sysfs attribute, and create an utility for changing port's
Then if things get solved in upstream, you can just change the
More information about the openwrt-devel