From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [RFC RTNETLINK 00/09]: Netlink link creation API Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 18:40:38 -0600 Message-ID: References: <20070605141250.15650.47178.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, socketcan@hartkopp.net, hadi@cyberus.ca, xemul@sw.ru, tgraf@suug.ch To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:39855 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934321AbXFFAtS (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2007 20:49:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070605141250.15650.47178.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> (Patrick McHardy's message of "Tue, 5 Jun 2007 16:12:51 +0200 (MEST)") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Reading through the patches they look usable to me. Having to patch iproute to create the more interesting network devices sucks, but that problem seems fundamental. We might be able to avoid it if we allowed fields to be reused between different types of devices but that makes the error checking trickier, and we aren't likely to have that many types of devices so there likely isn't much value in generalizing. I do think we should specify the IFLA_KIND (was: IFLA_NAME) values in a header file. So it is easy to get a list of all of the different kinds and so we don't conflict. Eric