From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.s-osg.org ([54.187.51.154]:53745 "EHLO lists.s-osg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754286AbcCNPxF (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:53:05 -0400 Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:_PROBLEM=ef=bc=9athere_exists_a_wrong_return_value_of_?= =?UTF-8?Q?function_ieee802154=5fadd=5fiface=28=29?= References: <485cdac3.48e1.1535e928b67.Coremail.rucsoftsec@163.com> <20160310090957.GA5020@omega> <56E1A330.5060304@osg.samsung.com> <20160314093001.GA4947@omega> From: Stefan Schmidt Message-ID: <56E6DE5D.5010708@osg.samsung.com> Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 16:53:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160314093001.GA4947@omega> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-wpan-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Alexander Aring Cc: Zhang Yan , linux-wpan@vger.kernel.org Hello. On 14/03/16 10:30, Alexander Aring wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 05:39:12PM +0100, Stefan Schmidt wrote: >> Hello. >> >> Missing a bit context here as the original message never made it to the >> list. >> > linux-wpan was cc'ed inside the mail, but there was some html stuff > there... I don't know why it isn't arrived at linux-wpan. If it had html in it vger would reject it. > Anyway... > > There exists a bugzilla entry for that and John Linville said that I > should care about that, see [0]. OK >> On 10/03/16 10:10, Alexander Aring wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think this is a good time to remove the deprecated netlink interface >>> for 802.15.4. >>> >>> Stefan please say your opinion here. There should be really nobody which >>> use this interface anymore. >> My mind haven't really changed on this topic. I understand why you want it >> removed but given that the general rule of the kernel is to have backward >> compatibility we can't just remove it. Dropping the old netlink interface >> breaks userspace compatibility, even if it only is for deprecated tools like >> lowpan-tools, etc. >> >> My take on it is that we live with it. Keeping it around but not extending >> it. Maybe add a warning to dmesg iwhen some application uses the old >> interface. >> >> Is it more code cleanliness/maintenance or bug reports that urge you to get >> rid of it? > This is one of the smallest problem, I can live with "live with it". But > when I need to touch it because "nl802154" and "ieee802154" use the same > INTERNAL interface, e.g. llsec. I don't want to handle backwards > compatibility for that. > > This complete handling with the damnd backwards compatibility for a > interface which is totally broken. (Yes I think [0] is one of the > smallest issues). We getting stucked in developing of 802.15.4 to > develop a better netlink interface (nl802154). > > The old interface I would describe as: > > - deprecated > - broken > - there exists no official userspace tool to handle everything, e.g. > llsec, txpower, csma, etc... > > I want to remove it otherwise the branch will die again, because stupid > handling a broken interface which nobody should use anymore. > > My argument is: > > Don't forget the 802.15.4 branch is still experimental, no maintainer > acked this commit [1]. For EXPERIMENTAL things you can be sure that the > UAPI interface will not be changed later and I would still say this > branch is EXPERIMENTAL. > > > I also have 3-4 things which we need to change inside the new interface > (nl802154), because the deprecated already handle it wrong and I simple > copy&pasted it... but it was wrong. Then handling of two UAPI's which > need to access the INTERNAL api (cfg802154) will be mostly impossible. You are sold on it and you are doing a lot of work there. Give it a try. Maybe you are lucky and it will just go through and we only have to deal with a few complaints about lowpan-tools no longer working with 4.6/4.7. Be prepared though that if everything goes south you might find yourself being yelled at by Linus. :) Just saying. regards Stefan Schmidt