David Lutterkort
Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:25:35 -0700
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 09:21 -0400, Laine Stump wrote: > On 10/26/2009 06:00 AM, David Lutterkort wrote:
> That thought briefly went through my mind too. I don't have any problem > with it. The semantics are a bit different, though - the flag bit in > netcf_if_flag_t uses "ACTIVE" instead of "UP", and it has 2 bits, one > for active and one for inactive. So to be consistent, one or the other > of the bits would need to be set (of course in practice, by definition > they are always the opposite of each other, so the application would > only need to test one of the bits). True - we just need to make sure we set one or the other. > And of course it's always possible that the set of flags for the two > won't exactly match, which could lead to some nonsensical bits for one > or the other. I guess as long as they're documented, that wouldn't be a > problem, though. 'Nonsensical' in the sense that filtering by them might not be very important, though there's no harm in allowing that; if we can query the status of an interface for something, we can always filter by it and vice versa. So I don't think that that will be an issue. > I can easily change it to work that way. Want? Yes, please. David _______________________________________________ netcf-devel mailing list netcf-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/netcf-devel