On Fri, 12.12.14 09:07, Rauta, Alin (alin.ra...@intel.com) wrote: > What do you think about the following transformations: > > [FDBEntry] =====> [FDBNeigh]
We try to avoid acronyms and abbreviations unless they are very widely established. Hence I am not convinced "Neigh" is something we should use. Given that "fdb" and "entry" are commonly used I think [FDBEntry] would be fine. If I get this right "fdb" only makes sense in a bridge context, correct? Maybe [BridgeFDBEntry] instead? > FDBControlled =====> FDBCleanTable > VLAN =====> VLANId > > ? > > When FDBCleanTable is set to yes, networkd will clean the existing FDB > entries for current port and FDBCleanTable will have no impact on [FDBNeigh] > sections .... Hmm, networkd takes ownership of the network interfaces it is configured to manage, hence I am wondering whether the flushing of the FDB should not be the implied logic when it takes possession of an interface? Is there a good usecase why one would *not* want this? I mean, if networkd would simply flush the fdb of bridge devices unconditionally when it initializes that interface, would that be a problem? Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
