Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:04:49AM CET, olichtne(a)redhat.com wrote:
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 think we should be consistent which what we already have for plain vlan
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
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jiri Pirko" <jpirko(a)redhat.com>
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:
> <slave id="t1" vlan_tag="1"/>
> <slave id="t2" vlan_tag="1"/>
> <bond id="mfg">
> <slave id="t1"/>
> <slave id="t2"/>
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.