On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 9:05 AM, David Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 08:59:37 -0700 > >> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 1:20 AM, David Miller <[email protected]> wrote: >>> From: Mahesh Bandewar <[email protected]> >>> Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 12:16:15 -0700 >>> >>>> In almost every scenario the loopback device is brought UP after >>>> initialization. So there is no point of bringing up the device in >>>> DOWN state followed by device UP operation. This change exposed >>>> another issue of fib-trie initialization which is corrected in the >>>> first path. >>> >>> You use the word almost, which supports my position that someone may >>> not want this. >>> >>> I also don't see it as so much of a burdon to bring the lo device up >>> explicitly. Systems have been having to do that since the beginning >>> of time. >>> >> Systems have only one lo device (since ages) and that is usually taken >> care at the boot time. Now with the namespaces it's not just one >> device as it's per namespace and though not much this patch will >> benefit a little. Probably we should ask a question - is it going to >> have any bad effects? I couldn't find any and my RFC patch did not get >> me any such feedback. As far as the good effects are concerned, it has >> already found a bug (another patch in this series)! Also sometime back >> I did experience weird behavior inside net-namespace if you forget to >> bring-up the loopback device. I didn't pay too much attention as >> bringing up the lo device fixed it. > > You're not talking at all about why specifically you need this > (ie. your use case) when you are spinning up namespaces for users. > > I do happen to know those details, but you need to talk about this > explicitly in your commit log messages and in this discussion so that > everyone else understands this as well. > Well, I can make this commit message long-winded but most of the (so called) issues are well known and I thought I wont add any additional value repeating them here hence kept it simple. I can spin up the next rev with the long-winded commit message. ;)
> Thank you.
