Re: [bonding] Add basic support for dynamic configuration of bond interfaces

[Amir Noam <amir.noam@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sunday 11 January 2004 11:59 pm, Jeff Garzik wrote:

> ioctls are a pain for 32/64-bit emulation layers too.  It seems
> much easier to define a netlink protocol family of some sort and
> communicate that way.

It seems that a lot of different suggestions were made so far about 
the best way to pass messages unrelated to a specific interface to 
the kernel (char device, netlink, sysfs), all with their own 
advantages and disadvantages.

Until the preferred method is decided on for 2.6, is there a real 
objection to using a generic socket ioctl for bonding in the *2.4* 
kernel? (again, given that several other modules already use such a 
scheme, and won't change that behavior in 2.4)

It would be nice to have the support for dynamically adding/removing 
bonding interfaces in 2.4, and 2.4.25 is about to be the last 2.4 
kernel that accepts new features.

-- 
Amir