Sowmini.Varadhan at Sun.COM wrote:
>> d. Do we still need special handling for wifi devices in network-physical?
>> Also, is it possible for "dladm init-linkprop" to take one specific name
>> (which requires the changes in the do_init_linkprop() function)?
>
> Artem can confirm, but we'll need this as long as the wifi drivers
> are not converted to provide Brussels callbacks.. we're working with
> the wifi team to eliminate the wifi ioctls and replace them
> with Brussels callbacks..
>
I thought wifi link properties will also be initialized in the same code path?
dls_prop_load()->dls_mgmt_linkprop_init()->
dlmgmt_upcall_linkprop_init()->dladm_init_linkprop()
>> e. I don't think we should to keep the link property values in the kernel
>> and we can safely remove the whole dls_prop.c file, especially that 1)
>> today there are no consumers for that, and 2) some of link properties
>> simply do not go through the dls_set_prop() code path. If we need the
>> kernel copy one day, it should be easy to add them back.
>
> I would still vote in favor of keeping them.. as Artem pointed out it
> helps with providing mdb support for finding what customizations
> were done when we are looking at a crash dump. This was one of the
> big complaints about ndd- that we can't figure out this information
> from a crash dump easily.
Like I said, some of the link properties are not in the kernel copy as it
does not go through the same mac_init_prop() code path. If we are going to
have this mdb tool, I would expect that I can get the complete picture, no
matter the implementation details.
Thanks
- Cathy
>
> --Sowmini
>
> _______________________________________________
> crossbow-discuss mailing list
> crossbow-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/crossbow-discuss
