Re: [PATCH 1/5] schema-recipe.rng: add element ovs_bridge
Yeah, I've thought about that and it shouldn't be a huge change if we want it.
I chose this variation because it is more concise if you want to define a VLAN
trunk port - you just do <slave id="xyz" vlan_tags="1,2,3"/>
instead of defining
3 vlans and adding the port to all of them. Note that a slave tag can have either
the "vlan_tag" or "vlan_tags" attribute (or neither).
I accept that this might not be the best choice of attributes (if we use them at
all), so I'm willing to iterate and improve on this as I've explained in the
cover letter.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jiri Pirko" <jpirko(a)redhat.com>
To: olichtne(a)redhat.com
Cc: lnst-developers(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 7:50:58 AM
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] schema-recipe.rng: add element ovs_bridge
An example use in a recipe:
<ovs_bridge id="ovs_br">
<slaves>
<slave id="t1" vlan_tag="1"/>
<slave id="t2" vlan_tag="1"/>
</slaves>
<bond id="mfg">
<slaves>
<slave id="t1"/>
<slave id="t2"/>
</slaves>
</bond>
I wonder if the vlan definition should not be on the same level as bond.
That would make more sense to me. Just define slaves in <slaves> tag and
after that, model the topo.