On (08/22/07 15:44), Peter Memishian wrote: > The rationale for the "link" prefix is discussed in the dladm/WiFi PSARC > materials: > > However, there will be cases where a given link property is either not > generally applicable, or where we need to gain more experience before > committing to an administrative model. For these cases, we propose to > introduce a special namespace, starting with "link_"[1] that is reserved > for properties that are specific to a given link and subject to change > at any time. Accordingly, no guarantee is made to preserve behavior > across an upgrade. This distinction will be documented in dladm(1M) and > any link-specific tunables will be covered in the appropriate network > driver manpage. > > [1] The actual driver name should be omitted -- e.g., "link_xyzzy", > *not* "link_bge_xyzzy".
This actually seems to define the Brussels "Private Property". > This was originally added at the request of the Neptune development team, > but I don't think they are using it yet. I'm OK with doing something > different, but there needs to be some way to (a) indicate interface > stability and (b) provide link-specific tunables. I recall having this discussion before (see http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/brussels-dev/2007-June/000186.html). Seems like the conclusion that was reached was that private properties should be documented in the driver's 7D man page, along with the associated interface stability. --Sowmini
