> 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.)
But in this case ndd can be a strict subset without requiring dladm to have identical tunables. There are already better ways (e.g., the flowctrl [agh, I wish there were more vowels in that] link property) to accomplish the same end-result as these ndd legacy tunables, so I'd rather we didn't saddle the dladm show-linkprop output with them forever. In other words, I don't want show-linkprop to become a dump. -- meem
