Hi Tom,
Regarding your request:
> >>
> >> Hm, we need to introduce a new administrative state here I think
> >> (LINK_STATE_DOWN), and then make sure we don't accidentally leave
> >> it in case we get some other event after bringing the interface down.
> >>
This is a little bit tricky.
When we
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 03:26:00PM +, Rauta, Alin wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Thanks for your input on this. Much appreciated.
> I'll try handle your remarks in the next patch.
> Please find my comments below.
>
> Best Regards,
> Alin
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Tom Gundersen [mailt
Hi guys,
Thanks for your input on this. Much appreciated.
I'll try handle your remarks in the next patch.
Please find my comments below.
Best Regards,
Alin
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Gundersen [mailto:t...@jklm.no]
> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 2:50 PM
> To: Zbigniew Jędrzej
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:27:07PM +0100, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>> Hi Alin,
>>
>> Thanks for the patch. This is starting to look pretty good now.
>>
>> I still have some questions/requests regarding some implementation
>> details
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:27:07PM +0100, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> Hi Alin,
>
> Thanks for the patch. This is starting to look pretty good now.
>
> I still have some questions/requests regarding some implementation
> details (below), but hopefully we can get this merged after the next
> release (tr
Hi Alin,
Thanks for the patch. This is starting to look pretty good now.
I still have some questions/requests regarding some implementation
details (below), but hopefully we can get this merged after the next
release (trying to stabilize things at the moment).
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:30 PM, A
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 09:53:28AM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> В Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:25:08 +0100
> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek пишет:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:52:00PM +, Rauta, Alin wrote:
> > > > Yes, but the updates need to be done for all links and I'm not sure
> > > > adding
Hi Tom,
Any news on this ?
Best Regards,
Alin
-Original Message-
From: Lennart Poettering [mailto:lenn...@poettering.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 6:03 PM
To: Rauta, Alin
Cc: zbys...@in.waw.pl; t...@jklm.no; systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org;
Kinsella, Ray
Subject: Re: [PAT
В Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:25:08 +0100
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek пишет:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:52:00PM +, Rauta, Alin wrote:
> > > Yes, but the updates need to be done for all links and I'm not sure
> > > adding this is a good thing.
> > > I'm now having 64 links on the switch and I need
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:52:00PM +, Rauta, Alin wrote:
> > Yes, but the updates need to be done for all links and I'm not sure adding
> > this is a good thing.
> > I'm now having 64 links on the switch and I need the failure detection in
> > networkd to be quite fast because however even no
> Yes, but the updates need to be done for all links and I'm not sure adding
> this is a good thing.
> I'm now having 64 links on the switch and I need the failure detection in
> networkd to be quite fast because however even now it's probably slower due
> to evaluating dynamically the BindCarri
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 08:56:00AM +, Rauta, Alin wrote:
> > Well, one option could be to keep a set of bound_by and bound_to links
> > around for each link, and then just update that each time an interface
> > comes, goes, or changes names.
>
> Yes, but the updates need to be done for all lin
> Well, one option could be to keep a set of bound_by and bound_to links
> around for each link, and then just update that each time an interface
> comes, goes, or changes names.
Yes, but the updates need to be done for all links and I'm not sure adding this
is a good thing.
I'm now having 64 lin
On Wed, 11.02.15 17:44, Rauta, Alin (alin.ra...@intel.com) wrote:
> Hi Lennart,
>
> > +_public_ int sd_network_link_get_carriers(int ifindex, char ***ret) {
> > +return network_get_link_strv("CARRIERS", ifindex, ret); }
> > +
>
> > I think it would be better to have two calls here:
> >
Hi Lennart,
> +_public_ int sd_network_link_get_carriers(int ifindex, char ***ret) {
> +return network_get_link_strv("CARRIERS", ifindex, ret); }
> +
> I think it would be better to have two calls here:
>
> int sd_network_link_get_carrier_bound_to(int ifindex, int **others);
> int sd
On Tue, 10.02.15 03:30, Alin Rauta (alin.ra...@intel.com) wrote:
> ---
> man/systemd.network.xml | 11 ++
> src/libsystemd/sd-network/sd-network.c | 4 +
> src/network/networkctl.c | 211
> ---
> src/network/networkd-link.c
Hi Zbyszek,
Thanks for your review. I've handled your remarks.
Let me know what you think.
Best Regards,
Alin
Alin Rauta (1):
Added support for Uplink Failure Detection using BindCarrier
man/systemd.network.xml | 11 ++
src/libsystemd/sd-network/sd-network.c | 4 +
src/
---
man/systemd.network.xml | 11 ++
src/libsystemd/sd-network/sd-network.c | 4 +
src/network/networkctl.c | 211 ---
src/network/networkd-link.c | 123 +-
src/network/networkd-link.h | 1
18 matches
Mail list logo
