From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] l2tp: introduce L2TPv3 support Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:24:31 +0100 Message-ID: <49A3BCCF.9040203@trash.net> References: <20090224063908.GA20652@gondor.apana.org.au> <49A3BB1E.8040005@katalix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Herbert Xu , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: James Chapman Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:58425 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754070AbZBXJYg (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2009 04:24:36 -0500 In-Reply-To: <49A3BB1E.8040005@katalix.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: James Chapman wrote: > Herbert Xu wrote: >> James Chapman wrote: >>> This patch series implements L2TPv3. It replaces the existing pppol2tp >>> driver with a number of separate drivers, namely:- >>> >>> l2tp_core - L2TP driver core. Always required. >>> l2tp_ppp - L2TP PPP >>> l2tp_eth - L2TPv3 ethernet pseudowire >>> l2tp_ip - L2TPv3 IP encapsulation >>> l2tp_netlink - L2TPv3 netlink API >> Have you thought by using the rtnl_link_ops interface instead >> of your own netlink API? > > I did, yes. I decided against it only because I didn't want to cause > confusion with what I perhaps wrongly perceive as an API for managing > net devices. In the L2TPv3 case, there might not be a netdev directly > associated with a newlink API call, for example. I've no problem with > switching the code to use it if it is preferred. From a quick look, it seems you're (also) managing sessions, for which rtnl_link might not be the best choice. Could you give a short overview of the operations you need to be able to perform?