The "in the field" problem is that after what firmware 1.7 changes with Intel network drivers or what not things broke due to the fact that network interfaces settings did not get inherited to the bridge interface and we need to avoid that problem, which is why I think we need to redefine how we fundamentally are defining type network devices
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 00:20 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 04:07:23PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > 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. > I don't think it's widely established. E.g. compared to "VLAN", it > certainly isn't. "FDB" is also pretty much non-googlable. > "ForwardingDatabase" is imho much nicer and easier to > search for. Also, it's not like you type those things by hand every > day, so saving a few characters should not be a consideration. > > Zbyszek > _______________________________________________ > systemd-devel mailing list > systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel >
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
