From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [bonding] Add basic support for dynamic configuration of bond interfaces Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:38:16 +0100 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20040112133816.57993f44.ak@suse.de> References: <200401111628.07930.amir.noam@intel.com> <4001A667.2020904@pobox.com> <4001C158.6040103@candelatech.com> <4001C72E.8030108@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: greearb@candelatech.com, amir.noam@intel.com, bonding-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, netdev@oss.sgi.com, hadi@cyberus.ca Return-path: To: Jeff Garzik In-Reply-To: <4001C72E.8030108@pobox.com> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:59:10 -0500 Jeff Garzik wrote: > ioctls are a pain for 32/64-bit emulation layers too. It seems much > easier to define a netlink protocol family of some sort and communicate > that way. Actually that's not true. netlink is far worse for emulation layers when you break the protocol. e.g. the current ipsec/pf_key protocol is not compatible on x86-64 and it is near impossible to fix it without major surgery. With ioctls it would be far easier to fixbecause the infrastructure for emulation is already there. -Andi