On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:07:20PM +0800, Peter Memishian wrote: > > > As you might know that the Clearview vanity naming component is > > proposing to add a "-l" option to specify the link of various dladm > > subcommands. For example, "dladm create-vlan -l net0 -v 28 vlan1" is to > > create a VLAN vlan1 over link net0. > > > > But then we found that "-l" is already used in the create-aggr > > subcommand to specify the LACP mode. > > > > We can think of several options to solve this problem: > > > > 1. we can choose not to introduce another option, but simply use the > > original "-d" option to specify the link. Although it might be somewhat > > misleading because the link is not really a *d*evice, but from the user's > > perspective, it might not necessarily a bad thing. Plus "-d" is used in > > snoop to specify a link anyway. > > > > 2. use "-l" to specify both link and the LACP mode. Because link name > > always ends with a digit, so that we can differentiate these two cases. > >
this seems fine. what do you display in usage()? both '-l' and '-L'? it might be less confusing to just display '-L' in usage() and leave the '-l' in the manpage. eric > > 3. use "-L" to specify the link, and leave "-l" to specify the LACP mode. > I > > personally don't like this option. > > As the person who suggested (2), let me clarify my suggestion: it was that > we change the documentation create-aggr and modify-aggr to state that "-L" > changes the LACP mode, but that for compatibility, we continue to quietly > recognize "-l off", "-l active", and "-l passive" as synonyms for "-L > off", "-L active" and "-L passive". My reasoning for this is threefold: > > 1. As Cathy mentioned, we will be making a split -- especially apparent > in dladm -- between devices and links. It is possible (though not > recommended) for an administrator to have two devices, A and B, with > link names B and A. Having them to specify "-d A" and actually end > up with link B fails the principle of least surprise. I would rather > have "-d A" remain a legacy way to refer to device A (regardless of > its link name), and "-l A" refer to link A (device B here). We would > of course encourage people to use "-l" in general with dladm. > > 2. Also related to the principle of least surprise, I'd like all dladm > subcommands that operate on links to use the same option letter. So > if we choose "-d" for create-aggr, I'd want to use "-d" across the > board. But then we risk deepening the confusion between links and > devices stated above -- and all to sidestep what seems to be a rarely > used option to a command that has only been available to customers > for a year or so. Since dladm will likely last for decades, that > doesn't seem like the right trade-off to me. Likewise, in a decade, > no one will remember that for a couple of S10 update releases, "-l" > was the documented way to set the LACP mode for create-aggr. > > 3. Speaking of consistency, show-aggr already uses -L to show LACP > information. So using -L to set LACP mode with create-aggr and > modify-aggr seems more consistent anyway. > > -- > meem
