> On 25 Jan 2017, at 16:48, Alex Gartrell <agartrell@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > If nbd were *all* netlink I think that that'd be fine, but you'd have > problems implementing the NBD_DOIT function in that fashion. So I'd > rather stick to the char device ioctl thing because it's more > consistent with the old NBD stuff as well as the loop device stuff. I spend most of my time looking at the userspace side of NBD so apologies if this is off base. Given (because of NBD_DO_IT) we need an ioctl anyway, and we have an ioctl that isn't going to go away, it would seem better if possible to stick with ioctls, and not introduce either a dependency on netlink (which would presumably bloat static binaries that are used early in the boot process). Personally I'd have thought adding a new NBD ioctl (or extending an existing one) would be less entropy than adding a new char device. -- Alex Bligh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
