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.
It is early stage of this project. Let's merge it and fix it afterwards.
No description provided.