On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 06:25:11PM +0000, Alex Bligh wrote: > > > 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. Why can't you just do this on any existing nbd block device with an ioctl to it? No need to have to do it on an out-of-band char device node, right? thanks, greg k-h -- 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
