-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
Support detailed link show #5
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Support detailed link show #5
Conversation
|
@cathay4t I would like to help if that's fine by you. |
ee52b2b to
cdf6443
Compare
|
Any help is welcome. Could you split this PR into two patches:
|
cdf6443 to
76ec769
Compare
|
@cathay4t Done. I am not sure about this design, I think some of the type-specific properties might come between the "common" properties. I also have other changes for adding support for down-link and link-netns, should I open another PR? |
You may have struct IfaceDetail {
base: BaseInterfaceDetail,
bond: Option<BondConfig>,
bridge: Option<BridgeConfig>
}
New PR please. Please fix the CI failure also. |
|
@cathay4t The CI failure is for attributes that are still not supported by netlink-packet-route, should I open a PR for that there? or for now just handle these manually here (using |
76ec769 to
4df9270
Compare
|
@cathay4t For now I used constants, until there is support for these nlas in netlink-packet-route |
Now supporting: promiscuity allmulti min_mtu max_mtu inet6_addr_gen_mode num_tx_queues num_rx_queues gso_max_size gso_max_segs tso_max_size tso_max_segs gro_max_size Also adds skeleton for specific details
4df9270 to
668c76e
Compare
Also adds support for parentbus and parentdev fields.
These changes are added as a base example for other interface types.
668c76e to
7c31278
Compare
cathay4t
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It is early stage of this project. Let's merge it and fix it afterwards.
No description provided.