From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: netlink tester program Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 20:35:05 -0700 (PDT) Sender: linux-net-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030602.203505.59678701.davem@redhat.com> References: <20030602140452.039248de.rddunlap@osdl.org> <20030602.145619.71112623.davem@redhat.com> <33001.4.64.196.31.1054611142.squirrel@www.osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-net@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: rddunlap@osdl.org In-Reply-To: <33001.4.64.196.31.1054611142.squirrel@www.osdl.org> List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: "Randy.Dunlap" Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 20:32:22 -0700 (PDT) The code is absolute, no doubt about it. It is the authority. That doesn't make it right in all cases AFAIK. I totally agree. Now, given that I think that the netlink interface is poorly documented, and that I'm trying to add some kernel code that uses it, and that I'm trying to test said kernel code with a userspace test program, I also plan to add such documentation that I think is warranted to make it easy to use, even by non-kernel devevlopers. This is exactly how things should work. Where there is a need for X _AND_ someone willing to create X, it will be created. No arguments from me on this :-)