On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 11:11 +0800, Asias He wrote: > On 05/04/2011 11:01 AM, Amos Kong wrote: > > 'atbr0' is a private bridge. > > This script is used to setup tap device. > > > > Signed-off-by: Amos Kong <[email protected]> > > --- > > client/tests/kvm/scripts/qemu-ifup-atbr0 | 6 ++++++ > > 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > create mode 100755 client/tests/kvm/scripts/qemu-ifup-atbr0 > > > > diff --git a/client/tests/kvm/scripts/qemu-ifup-atbr0 > > b/client/tests/kvm/scripts/qemu-ifup-atbr0 > > new file mode 100755 > > index 0000000..82c7efa > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/client/tests/kvm/scripts/qemu-ifup-atbr0 > > @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ > > +#!/bin/sh > > +switch=atbr0 > > +/sbin/ifconfig $1 0.0.0.0 up > > +/usr/sbin/brctl addif ${switch} $1 > > +/usr/sbin/brctl setfd ${switch} 0 > > +/usr/sbin/brctl stp ${switch} off > > brctl is not in /usr/sbin but /sbin in some systems, e.g. Debian. > > hj:~# which brctl > /sbin/brctl > > Does dropping this absolute path to brctl sound better?
I was planning to revive Jason's patchset that replaced the qemu ifup scripts altogether. If the scripts were to be kept, yes, dropping the absolute path sound good. Thanks! _______________________________________________ Autotest mailing list [email protected] http://test.kernel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/autotest
