From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Subject: Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 13:31:48 +0200 Message-ID: <20170804113147.GA25254@vergenet.net> References: <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> <1c494983-24e0-cd8f-9a2a-5d2a83e0bbc2@gmail.com> <0d84bd27-2fd1-68c0-5787-0195e95ab1af@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Daniel Borkmann , Stephen Hemminger , Phil Sutter , David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Ahern Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f170.google.com ([209.85.128.170]:36702 "EHLO mail-wr0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752193AbdHDLbv (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Aug 2017 07:31:51 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-f170.google.com with SMTP id y43so15706381wrd.3 for ; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 04:31:51 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0d84bd27-2fd1-68c0-5787-0195e95ab1af@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 02:26:58PM -0600, David Ahern wrote: > On 5/18/17 10:24 PM, David Ahern wrote: > > 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. > > > > Stephen: It has been 3 months since the first extack patches were posted > and still nothing in iproute2, all of it hung up on your decision to > require libmnl. Do you plan to finish the libmnl support any time soon > and send out patches? FWIIW I would also like to see some way to get this enhancement accepted.