From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Amir Noam Subject: Re: [bonding] Add basic support for dynamic configuration of bond interfaces Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:00:50 +0200 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <200401141700.50119.amir.noam@intel.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , Return-path: To: "Jeff Garzik" In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Sunday 11 January 2004 11:59 pm, 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. It seems that a lot of different suggestions were made so far about the best way to pass messages unrelated to a specific interface to the kernel (char device, netlink, sysfs), all with their own advantages and disadvantages. Until the preferred method is decided on for 2.6, is there a real objection to using a generic socket ioctl for bonding in the *2.4* kernel? (again, given that several other modules already use such a scheme, and won't change that behavior in 2.4) It would be nice to have the support for dynamically adding/removing bonding interfaces in 2.4, and 2.4.25 is about to be the last 2.4 kernel that accepts new features. -- Amir