David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:10:29 +0400 > > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 04:37:36PM -0700, Mike Anderson (andmike@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > > > > --- linux.orig/include/linux/netlink.h 2007-07-11 21:37:31.000000000 +0100 > > > > > +++ linux/include/linux/netlink.h 2007-07-11 21:37:50.000000000 +0100 > > > > > @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ > > > > > #define NETLINK_DNRTMSG 14 /* DECnet routing messages */ > > > > > #define NETLINK_KOBJECT_UEVENT 15 /* Kernel messages to userspace */ > > > > > #define NETLINK_GENERIC 16 > > > > > -/* leave room for NETLINK_DM (DM Events) */ > > > > > +#define NETLINK_DM 17 /* Device Mapper */ > > > > > #define NETLINK_SCSITRANSPORT 18 /* SCSI Transports */ > > > > > #define NETLINK_ECRYPTFS 19 > > > > > > > > Have the net guys checked this? > > > > > > No. The support is a derivative of the netlink support in > > > scsi_transport_iscsi.c. > > > > I'm not sure about all net guys, but the first question rised after > > reading this - why do you want special netlink family and do not want to > > use interfaces created on top of - like connector and genetlink? > > I agree, there is really no reason to not at least use > genetlink. ok, I will switch over to using genetlink. -andmike -- Michael Anderson andmike@xxxxxxxxxx -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
