From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] etherip: Ethernet-in-IPv4 tunneling Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:43:52 -0800 Message-ID: <41E5B638.8070007@candelatech.com> References: <20050112222437.GC14280@xi.wantstofly.org> <41E5A7E9.4030101@candelatech.com> <20050112224810.GE14280@xi.wantstofly.org> <41E5AEAC.8060706@candelatech.com> <20050112231615.GF14280@xi.wantstofly.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Lennert Buytenhek In-Reply-To: <20050112231615.GF14280@xi.wantstofly.org> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Lennert Buytenhek wrote: > On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 03:11:40PM -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > > >>>>Also, could you add an ioctl that allowed one to query whether or not >>>>a particular device is an etherip device? I had always wished I had added >>>>this earlier to the VLAN code :) >>> >>>Hmmm. Bridge devices don't have this either, do they? Can you name >>>an advantage of having this? >> >>I got the request several times with regard to VLANs. Lots of people >>(and applications) will want to know the interface type for various >>reasons. If you don't give them a nice programatic thing like an >>IOCTL to call, they will undoubtedly start making assumptions based >>off of the device name... > > > Makes sense.. > > Unfortunately SIOCGETTUNNEL is (SIOCDEVPRIVATE + 3), otherwise we could > just say something like "If an ARPHRD_ETHER device supports SIOCGETTUNNEL, > it's an ether/ip tunnel." > > Any better ideas? I hate adding more ioctls. How about add one IOCTL that takes a small (naturally packed/aligned, fixed-size!) struct that has within it an enumeration of specific commands and whatever fields are needed for arguments. Then you only need to add a single IOCTL to the system, and you can add more commands at will. Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com