Re: RFC: configuring net interfaces

[Francois Romieu <romieu@cogenit.fr>]

Krzysztof Halasa <khc@intrepid.pm.waw.pl> écrit :
[...]
> But it's still more complicated than the first one and I'm not sure 
> if doing that is worth it
> 
> > struc sub_req {
> > 	int sub_ioctl;
> 
> ... as we lose 4 bytes here (currently the union of structs in ifreq
> is limited to 16 bytes)

I missed that. Point taken.

[...]
> struct ifreq {
>         char name[16];
>         union {
>                 ...
>                 struct {
>                         int sub_command;
>                         int data_length;
>                         void *data;
>                 }
>         }ifru;
> }
> 
> ... while "data" would be fr_protocol, eth_physical etc.
> 
> It's (of course) more complicated, but there is a gain:
> - we can have different size requests (from 0 bytes to, say, 100KB)

Fine with me (some day we'll surely end passing those data via a read if we
need 300Mo but we're not there :o) ).

[Other points]

Yes.

-- 
Ueimor