> > I'm still confused; why wouldn't it just record just the delta they've > > requested with += or -=? > > I thought you were saying: > > > If the admin has e.g. a SPEED-DUPLEX value of 100g-f,10m-h > > and they want to change the 10m-h value to 10m-f then they would need to > > enter 100g-f,10m-f, or first do -=10m-h followed by += of 10m-f. > > and I was addressing the first part of that sentence. So it would not > be possible to modify the existing set without a series of -= and += > commands, and then "show-linkprop -p en-mii" would have to compute > the union of all such commands so far to figure out what to print.
I see what you're getting at now, and agree it would add complexity to resolve. > My suggestion, otoh, would involve just one command that, to me, > is more intuitive, and doesn't involve keeping track of all the +/- > operations so far: > dladm set-linkprop -p en-mii=no-10m-h,10m-f ... Personally, I find that syntax really alien, and I'm not sure how it expands to the general case (cpus=no-23,12)? > I'm not too crazy about the -= and += syntax. So far we have had > a simple -p <name>=<value> interface, and now we are proposing that > a subset of commands that may take the -/+ adjustment as a sort of > "modify-linkprop". It adds a complexity, that as Garrett points out, > seems like overkill for this case. If it was just for this case, I'd agree. However, link properties are a general mechanism and the more we can put into the framework the less that gets dumped onto everyone else (including the administrator). But given their limited use at this point, I don't feel too strongly about it. -- meem
