From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Antonio Quartulli Subject: Re: Re: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [PATCH 6/7] batman-adv: Allow to use rntl_link for device creation/deletion Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 15:54:20 +0100 Message-ID: <20121201145420.GN24115@ritirata.org> References: <1353715332-4284-1-git-send-email-sven@narfation.org> <15221362.NFC3M7kpXE@sven-laptop.home.narfation.org> <20121201132802.GM24115@ritirata.org> <3895612.sgriB1OUoY@sven-laptop.home.narfation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="YS7t75H5cNTCpbja" Cc: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Sven Eckelmann Return-path: Received: from contumacia.investici.org ([178.255.144.35]:26897 "EHLO contumacia.investici.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751644Ab2LAOzW (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Dec 2012 09:55:22 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3895612.sgriB1OUoY@sven-laptop.home.narfation.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --YS7t75H5cNTCpbja Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 02:39:26PM +0100, Sven Eckelmann wrote: > On Saturday 01 December 2012 14:28:02 Antonio Quartulli wrote: > > > Because this is the normal way to create virtual network devices (ple= ase > > > feel free to correct me). > >=20 > > Well, I've seen different iface types using many tools, e.g. vconfig, > > tunctl, brctl.. > > Not that this justifies the fact that we should do the same (imho havin= g a > > standard and unified way for creating interfaces would be the best opti= on). >=20 > The device creation and enslaving using vconfig, tunctl and brctl can be= =20 > replaced using ip. True. >=20 > > But, to be honest, I think it should better discuss how to entirely > > moving/changing the existent API to a "better one" or to a "new one", > > instead of starting to maintain two of them from now on with no plan, d= on't > > you think so? >=20 > I leave this discussion to the maintainers of batman-adv.=20 I started this discussion here because you are still part of them (even if = not listed in MAINTAINERS). > Btw. removing the=20 > old one without a time of coexistence sounds like a bad move. And therefo= re=20 > maintaining of both interfaces like it is done in other network devices s= eems=20 > to be necessary. >=20 Exactly, this is what I wanted to discuss as "a plan". Anyway, I discussed about this together with the others and it seems that a proper solution now is to wait before merging this patchset and fix = the current sysfs/rtnl_lock problem first. What do you think? Adding a new API without fixing the current one doesn't sound like a good m= ove. Cheers, --=20 Antonio Quartulli =2E.each of us alone is worth nothing.. Ernesto "Che" Guevara --YS7t75H5cNTCpbja Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQuhocAAoJEADl0hg6qKeOyPMP/2SWSPTPih27EvIsVnWm6MQ0 sArs1aQUc4XmOXikG93B6IiFc5iEeDOmJ87JPHTBbKEFIqi0viri8g4u0BXIP0Yv Nwn+9Kd1tBLoNbvlFJMBVjVIblmeltfVh8W2kjlj3l1t0UROYs2oRYrrfa3b5/T+ TUWSAPZaYLCJSM5gT37z1U/H6SvQaurHOwCvxc8I4VinEZyK3E7EB7Iar4A0UcLJ mExlA3khDphSJ7tjg7rKcm+Gthk1+z4CxblX+/whKo7q5/dBh6T8wWtO9WQWH6Qr Hxb/8WKqEyWqBNfJqYK5rLP/cCI7EGw4rPl0VHekDQXSt+Rps+nvLHwMXlUi0Xmj ilnOSF5uBrPUSFje7REYBExdpp6zz6P2o0nwBY37U6kQhvTw2QNpz1fAzf2nbSwM jrtJTBaw2LV7ppFn9UVG5WTYmHfEtZxelsKKt4MP0sgpQwE7tz3EHAefHGyiY1C/ sG107dr2PEIG5GkRpsOQg4kUpW9NtqjW8HLCGMFUrlyBcDJCIDpG7qvb4gXM3zMx xOql5SqQIbz8ZHvpQ2rFQ9+eEQP6YuCmafLczA01Vy1jv0QSdAVnrkKd07449U3l G3SNINVNs8Fa+FL3mMcRrlGSoj4xes20URjxBSlXDtXlFeMrb8iF/a8NKQWF2O+0 77YuHcl5y2OJ9JRaDhpx =ye2Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --YS7t75H5cNTCpbja--