Cathy Zhou wrote:
> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I've decided that the linkprop.c code in libdladm will be the basis 
>>>> for the flat file for storing link configuration information that 
>>>> I'm prototyping.  Note that the version of linkprop.c in the Project 
>>>> Clearview gate no longer has code in it to parse or write 
>>>> /etc/dladm/linkprop.c, so I'm using the linkprop.c in the Nevada 
>>>> gate as my basis.  When I mention linkprop.c, the Nevada gate 
>>>> version is the version I'm referring to unless I state otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> The parsing code already supports name-value pairs, or actually 
>>>> name-value0-value1-...-valueN sets.  The format I'm proposing is:
>>>>
>>>> <linkname>\t<prop0>=<type>,<val>;<prop1>=<type>,<val>;...;<propN>=<type>,<val>;
>>>>  
>>>>
>>> Why note be:
>>>
>>> linkid name=string,<val>; ...
>>>
>>> So that renaming operation would be simpler?
>>
>> Right, but do we want to go that route?  I agree it would be simpler, 
>> and I like that, but do we want to identify the entry that way?
>>
> This is a private configuration file, why cannot we store information 
> whichever way we prefer?
> 

True.  I'll do it that way.

>> [...]
>>>> For the flat file route, I would need to:
>>>>
>>>> - move i_dladm_rw_db and associated code (optional, but strongly 
>>>> desired)
>>> I agree to move that function to linkmgmtd, and rename the function 
>>> to be not prefixed with dladm.
>> [...]
>>
>> We can't move it to linkmgmtd, the secobj.conf code in libdladm still 
>> uses i_dladm_rw_db.  Sorry, I should have mentioned that as a 
>> consideration in moving it.  Maybe we should have a separate library 
>> for i_dladm_rw_db (and then as you suggest, change the function name)?
>>
> Or we could have a separate function to update and read the 
> datalink.conf file. I agree the logic is similar to i_dladm_rw_db(). But 
> I don't have preference either way.
>

OK.  We won't need the locking part of i_dladm_rw_db, but we will need 
the part that correctly updates the file, and prevents (or attempts to 
prevent) loss of data during a write operation.

Dan


Reply via email to