From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pali =?utf-8?B?Um9ow6Fy?= Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2021 16:21:55 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] ppp: Add rtnl attribute IFLA_PPP_UNIT_ID for specifying ppp unit id Message-Id: <20210817162155.idyfy53qbxcsf2ga@pali> List-Id: References: <2f10b64e-ba50-d8a5-c40a-9b9bd4264155@workingcode.com> <20210811173811.GE15488@pc-32.home> <20210811180401.owgmie36ydx62iep@pali> <20210812092847.GB3525@pc-23.home> <20210812134845.npj3m3vzkrmhx6uy@pali> <20210812182645.GA10725@pc-23.home> <20210812190440.fknfthdk3mazm6px@pali> <20210816161114.GA3611@pc-32.home> <20210816162355.7ssd53lrpclfvuiz@pali> <20210817160525.GA20616@pc-32.home> In-Reply-To: <20210817160525.GA20616@pc-32.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Guillaume Nault Cc: James Carlson , Chris Fowler , Jakub Kicinski , Paul Mackerras , "David S. Miller" , "linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" On Tuesday 17 August 2021 18:05:25 Guillaume Nault wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 06:23:55PM +0200, Pali Roh=C3=A1r wrote: > > On Monday 16 August 2021 18:11:14 Guillaume Nault wrote: > > > Do you have plans for adding netlink support to pppd? If so, is the > > > project ready to accept such code? > >=20 > > Yes, I have already some WIP code and I'm planning to send a pull > > request to pppd on github for it. I guess that it could be accepted, >=20 > I guess you can easily use the netlink api for cases where the "unit" > option isn't specified and fall back to the ioctl api when it is. If > all goes well, then we can extend the netlink api to accept a unit id. >=20 > But what about the lack of netlink feedback about the created > interface? Are you restricted to use netlink only when the "ifname" > option is provided? Exactly, this is how I wrote my WIP code... > > specially if there still would be backward compatibility via ioctl for > > kernels which do not support rtnl API. >=20 > Indeed, I'd expect keeping compatiblitity with old kernels that only > have the ioctl api to be a must (but I have no experience contributing > to the pppd project). >=20 > > One of the argument which can be > > used why rtnl API is better, is fixing issue: atomic creating of > > interface with specific name. >=20 > Yes, that looks useful. >=20