My HDLC patch and the recent discussion...

[Krzysztof Halasa <khc@pm.waw.pl>]

Hi,

Does anybody have additional comments on the HDLC (SIOCDEVICE etc)?

A copy of my previous lkml message follows.
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa
Network Administrator



Jeff Garzik <garzik@havoc.gtf.org> writes:

> "SIOCDEVICE" as a constant is unacceptable, so it would need to be
> SIOCWANDEVICE or something similar.

Well, I was probably under impression it should be used for Ethernet
as well (see the Dec 2000 thread)... Now I think I know people
using Ethernet (with full duplex over SM fibre) for WAN connections
- so SIOCWANDEVICE is ok. Not sure about TR, though - anyone using
it for WAN networking?

> SIOCETHTOOL, for example, is an ioctl which actually provides
> sub-ioctls, so that is probably a good model to follow.

SIOCDEVICE^WSIOCWANDEVICE of course has sub-ioctls as well. It is
obviously impossible without them.


I do _not_ want to fight any ETHTOOL vs SIOCDEVICE etc. battle here.
What I want is creating the best interface for controlling network
devices. Including Token Ring and Ethernet, unless there are valid
reasons to do otherwise.

I think we should concentrate on the interface first, then I will
patch the HDLC implementation.

If we're here... maybe we should really drop using the ifreq structure
and _replace_ it with better one (variable-sized)? It can be done
gradually, as both are quite compatible.
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa