Peter Memishian wrote: > > > My original thinking (when coming up with show-linkprop for WiFi) was > that > > > we could add additional (optional) fields for whatever information we > > > wanted. For instance, we could have a DESC field that gives a short > > > description of the property, or whatever. The most commonly useful > fields > > > should be shown by default, and the rest should be available via "-o > all". > > > If there's general consensus that the convenience of "-v" justifies > having > > > it as an alias for "-o all", that seems fine to me. > > > > I think that a better option may be to follow the "svcs -x" path, > > and have a "dladm -xp <propname>". Alternatively, we could do > > "dladm help <propname>" (following zoneadm), but I'm biased > > toward the -x method myself. > > I think the "-x" way would be an odd fit for dladm given that all of its > existing subcommands are <verb>-<noun> and "-x" is an option letter. > Separately, I'm also a little skittish about smearing information about a > given property across distinct subcommands -- which "help" would do. >
I agree with this argument. We need to aim for consistency. > > note that the above was just tentative output, and nothing written in > > stone.. > > Understood. > > > I think that, in subsequent discussions, we agreed to change the above > > to match the MII names in ieee802.3(5) > > But link_speed isn't listed in ieee802.3(5) -- so does this mean we'll use > "speed"? More generally, I'm not convinced that reusing those names is > the right choice (Do we really want to have a "link_up" property? Or do > I don't care *what* we choose, but we have to pick something. Right now the anarchy and inconsistencies is really, really infuriating. At the moment, the ieee802.3(5) man page seems to be the "documented" set, so it makes sense to use that. It may be that other adjustments (link_speed -> speed ?) are needed. But one or the other of the implementation or the documentation needs to be fixed. > we really need to have the output of show-linkprop to be knee-deep in > obscure link negotiation options like "lp_cap_1000hdx"?) > Those link negotiation options are not obscure, and they really do need to be accessible one way or another. Various attempts at hiding them have been made in the past, and, IMO, all such attempts have been unsatisfactory. > > > * Does a writeable link_status make sense? And does it really have > > > a default? > > > > This is a read-only property. I suppose the default should be "--" > > (i.e, undefined). > > Yeah, that would make sense to me. > >
