Dan Groves wrote: > > > Cathy Zhou wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I am thinking about the issue we discussed yesterday, and feel that >> we should change the current libdladm implementation before you do >> any more work on this. >> >> One problem of Nemo's alternative path configuration today, is that >> when "-R" is used, libdladm still tries to change the *active* >> configuration of this current system, and when that succeeds, it >> tries to persist the configuration in the specified alternative path. >> But as "-R" is tends to be used to change the configuration of >> another system, the current processing is not correct. >> > > Ouch... bug. > >> So I think we should first make that right. Also, as in the current >> system, we are not able to get any <linkname, linkid> mapping >> information of another system, or even validate the command. >> Probably, instead of tries to update the configuration in a >> alternative path, we should just record all the dladm subcommands in >> that alternation path, and when that system boot, run those commands >> one by one. >> >> What do you think? >> > > Yes, let's fix the bug first. > > Putting the dladm commands in the alternate root is very similar to > what Alan Maguire suggested to me when I talked to him about his > experiences using SMF. He put routeadm commands in > <altroot>/var/svc/profile/upgrade. I think we could put dladm > commands there.
That filename is project private to SMF so I'm not sure what the requirements are going to be for you to use it in a patch - you may need to execute a contract between the original project (for which this patch is against) and SMF in order to use it. Darren
