Cathy Zhou wrote:
> Peter Memishian wrote:
>> > I would like a rename operation to not involving delete_conf()
>> explicitly > and only need to update the specific link configuration
>> entry to be the new > link name.
>>
>> Is there a specific reason?
>>
> Well, the reason would be to simplify the API consumers. I'd like the
> do_rename() function only calls a single function dladm_rename_conf()
> instead of:
>
> dladm_read_conf(conf);
> dladm_delete_conf(linkid);
> dladm_set_conf_field("name", newname);
> dladm_write_conf();
>
Yes, rename is getting a little complicated. And the API user needs to
keep in mind a specific order is required. I think a rename would help.
And I agree with Cathy, it should be called dladm_rename_conf().
>> > Specific to Dan's question, we could add a function rename_conf()
>> to > differentiate it from the normal commit_conf() operation.
>>
>> I think it's more complicated than that, since commit_conf()
>> (write_conf()
>> as we've now been calling it) probably needs to write out the entire
>> configuration in one pass to preserve atomicity (as per my email).
>>
> I understand that. But that's in the API implementation.
>
Yes. The simple way of implementing rename would be to have it make the
four calls listed earlier in the mail, in the same order.
Dan
