From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4251029385798202964==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Denis Kenzior Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Import rntlutil from iwd Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 11:53:29 -0600 Message-ID: <2a22f7b3-6dd3-a011-28ce-d43dce31d762@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20200214163328.17647-1-wagi@monom.org> List-Id: To: ell@lists.01.org --===============4251029385798202964== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Daniel, On 2/14/20 10:33 AM, Daniel Wagner wrote: > This just copies over the code from iwd. No changes there except the > prefix of the functions name. > = > Unfortunatly, the unit test can only test the get/dump function > because the setters need root permissions. For this we need some sort > of sandbox. Does anyone have any ideas for this? > = > While writing the test case I noticed some inconsistency in the naming > sceme: > = > The IPv6 functions are consistent in the naming sceme, always > append ipv6 after the first name: > = > rtnl_ifaddr_ipv6_extract > rtnl_ifaddr_ipv6_get > rtnl_ifaddr_ipv6_add > rtnl_ifaddr_ipv6_delete > = > rtnl_route_ipv6_add_gateway > rtnl_route_ipv6_delete_gateway > = > = > For the IPv4 functions it's either a plain 'ifaddr' infix or somewhere ip= v4 > in the name: > = > = > rtnl_ifaddr_extract > rtnl_ifaddr_get > rtnl_ifaddr_add > rtnl_ifaddr_delete > = > rtnl_route_extract_ipv4 > rtnl_route_dump_ipv4 > = > -> drop ipv4? > = > rtnl_route_ipv4_add_connected > rtnl_route_ipv4_add_gateway > = > -> drop ipv4? > = > = > And there are the setters: > = > rtnl_set_linkmode_and_operstate > rtnl_set_mac > rtnl_set_powered > = > = > Is this the standard naming sceme? > = Both applied. Now lets fix these up as discussed on IRC. Regards, -Denis --===============4251029385798202964==--