Re: Fw: 2.6.12-rc4-mm[12] - ULOG problem

[Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>]

James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 May 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> > We should remove the feature.  If there is demonstrated need for multiple
> > instances then it should be done by more conventional means - syscall,
> > allocation of a device major then use the minor as a selector or whatever.
> 
> I'd suggest removing the connector code completely.
> 

How come?  It seems sensible to have library code which consoldates the
common netlink setup and teardown stuff and which offers a higher-level
messaging API, although connector may be a bit overdesigned for that.  The
fork connector guys seemed to find it useful?