From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Ahern Subject: Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 21:24:42 -0700 Message-ID: <1c494983-24e0-cd8f-9a2a-5d2a83e0bbc2@gmail.com> References: <20170503235638.31116-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <590AF624.6090808@iogearbox.net> <7315b681-9c78-4bc1-ab74-64509ab5887d@gmail.com> <20170504.104103.1628291573330660235.davem@davemloft.net> <20170504094356.66590a9a@xeon-e3> <20170504204318.GB21130@orbyte.nwl.cc> <20170516093625.178caf3f@xeon-e3> <591D711F.1000906@iogearbox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Phil Sutter , David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Borkmann , Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from mail-pg0-f67.google.com ([74.125.83.67]:36847 "EHLO mail-pg0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752261AbdESEYp (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 May 2017 00:24:45 -0400 Received: by mail-pg0-f67.google.com with SMTP id h64so8301771pge.3 for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 21:24:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <591D711F.1000906@iogearbox.net> Content-Language: en-US Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 5/18/17 3:02 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > So effectively this means libmnl has to be used for new stuff, noone > has time to do the work to convert the existing tooling over (which > by itself might be a challenge in testing everything to make sure > there are no regressions) given there's not much activity around > lib/libnetlink.c anyway, and existing users not using libmnl today > won't see/notice new improvements on netlink side when they do an > upgrade. So we'll be stuck with that dual library mess pretty much > for a very long time. :( lib/libnetlink.c with all of its duplicate functions weighs in at just 947 LOC -- a mere 12% of the code in lib/. From a total SLOC of iproute2 it is a negligible part of the code base. Given that, there is very little gain -- but a lot of risk in regressions -- in converting such a small, low level code base to libmnl just for the sake of using a library - something Phil noted in his cursory attempt at converting ip to libmnl. ie., The level effort required vs the benefit is just not worth it. There are so many other parts of the ip code base that need work with a much higher return on the time investment.