On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 01:39 +0530, Srinivas M.A. wrote:
I don't like the bridge-stp bridge start/stop interface. Why
would bridge-stp know what bridge to run RTSP on? A more natural
way, IMHO, would to extend brctl with a rstp on method. Why
is there one rstpctl tool and one brctl
On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 15:27 +0530, Srinivas M.A. wrote:
Curious, why is RSTP in user space? Lots of protocols are in the kernel,
why not RSTP too?
For one thing it is easier from a development standpoint. The kernel
just needs to provide hooks for allowing userspace programs to send
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 15:27 +0530, Srinivas M.A. wrote:
Curious, why is RSTP in user space? Lots of protocols are in the kernel,
why not RSTP too?
For one thing it is easier from a development standpoint. The kernel
just needs to provide hooks for
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:06:14 +0200
Joakim Tjernlund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 09:06 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:10:24 +0100
Joakim Tjernlund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Joakim Tjernlund [mailto:[EMAIL
On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 12:55 +0530, Srinivas M.A. wrote:
Ahh, I didn't copy bridge-stp to /sbin because I didn't think it was
needed. Just to test I blindly copied it to /sbin and did:
brclt addbr br0
brctl addif br0 eth0
brctl stp br0
and it hung my board :(
What did
So I both get a SEGV and the kernel thinks userspace is running STP, not
ideal.
Segfault is fixed by this:
diff --git a/log.h b/log.h
index ce0d94e..2fcdcfb 100644
--- a/log.h
+++ b/log.h
@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ extern int log_level;
#ifdef NO_DAEMON
#define ERROR(_fmt, _args...) \
-
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: den 31 mars 2008 19:09
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [Bridge] RSTP in
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/shemminger/rstp.git; a=summary
problems
On Mon
I don't like the bridge-stp bridge start/stop interface. Why
would bridge-stp know what bridge to run RTSP on? A more natural
way, IMHO, would to extend brctl with a rstp on method. Why
is there one rstpctl tool and one brctl tool?
I wrote rstpctl to just control the rstp daemon. Should
My updates have not yet made it to Stephen Hemminger's git repo, but I
am attaching a
Any time frame when this will hit Hemminger's repo?
I sent the patches to him some time back, but perhaps he hasn't had
time to look over them. It is a large set of changes anyway.
:) lets see, the
-Original Message-
From: Srinivas M.A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: den 30 mars 2008 11:32
To: Joakim Tjernlund
Cc: Bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [Bridge] RSTP in
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/shemminger/rstp.git; a=summary
problems
On Sun, 2008-03-30 at 17:05 +0530, Srinivas M.A. wrote:
My updates have not yet made it to Stephen Hemminger's git repo, but I
am attaching a
Any time frame when this will hit Hemminger's repo?
I sent the patches to him some time back, but perhaps he hasn't had
time to look over
Hi List
I cloned the above RSTP imp. and cross-compiled it to powerpc and tried
in on my 2.6.23 kernel, but didn't get very far:
Created a bridge, br0, with brctl and added two interfaces.
started rstpd without args and ran rstpctl
rstpctl showbridge br0
and all I get is
12 matches
Mail list logo
