|To:||Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Subject:||Re: [bonding] Add basic support for dynamic configuration of bond interfaces|
|From:||Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:51:23 -0800|
|Cc:||Amir Noam <amir.noam@xxxxxxxxx>, bonding-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, hadi@xxxxxxxxxx|
|References:||<E6F7D288B394A64585E67497E5126BA601F991D1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200401111628.07930.amir.noam@xxxxxxxxx> <4001A667.2020904@xxxxxxxxx> <4001C158.6040103@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4001C72E.8030108@xxxxxxxxx>|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007|
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Ben Greear wrote:I would also be open to moving the VLAN ioctls over into the ethtool ioctl space, but that just exchanges one magic ioctl for another...The key question is what is the best interface for userland to configure in-kernel information -that is unrelated to a specific interface-. ethtool ioctl space doesn't apply, because that's a per-interface API.
Actually, VLANs map very well to a per-interface API, since VLANs are interfaces and reside on other interfaces.
Opening a socket and just ioctl'ing away isn't terribly scalable in the long run, either. Consider all the applications that could legitimately claim they need a SIOCxxx ioctl assignment, just for their little slice of the networking world. Further, consider that all an ioctl is is a
My assumption is that adding a new ethtool message (or vlan ioctl message to the existing VLAN ioctl call) does not cause new emulation problems. Is that true?
I'll poke around and see what I can come up with.
I'm interested in seeing the result. I've never found a simple example of something using the netlink api, and if it can be done, then I'll probably convert. Ben -- Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [bonding] Add basic support for dynamic configuration of bond interfaces, jamal|
|Next by Date:||Re: [bonding] Add basic support for dynamic configuration of bond interfaces, Jeff Garzik|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [bonding] Add basic support for dynamic configuration of bond interfaces, jamal|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [bonding] Add basic support for dynamic configuration of bond interfaces, Jason Lunz|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|