Peter Memishian wrote:
> > > Seems fine to me. Regarding the `name' parameter to
> > > mac_register_priv_prop(): I presume the caller will not provide the `_',
> >
> > Yes. the driver will be written to be consistent with dladm's
> > private property expectations. the mac_ndd shim will add/delete
> > the "_" to deal with ND_SET/ND_GET ioctls.
>
> I see.
>
> So will dladm be able to interact with these properties? Based on some of
> the earlier emails in this thread, it seemed like you felt that was
> unnecessary (and I tend to agree), but I don't see anything in the spec
> that prevents it. Maybe a MAC_NDD_PROP flag to mac_register_priv_prop()?
>
In earlier conversations, I was indicating that dladm needed (or would
need at some point) a way to enumerate "private" properties (quite apart
from ndd), so I tried to convince Sowmini to keep the APIs general.
I don't think we should be exposing *any* feature via ndd that we don't
expose via dladm as well... in fact, I *would* like ndd to be a strict
subset of functionality available with dladm. (The smaller the subset,
the better, IMO.)
-- Garrett
