On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:16:59 +0200 Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 02:06 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > > Same way as the current RTM_SETLINK message works, but with creating > > a new link in advance. It works fine in other subsystems, so I don't > > see why it would in this case as well. Some subsystems do it in an > > atomic fashion (network schedulers for example), some first create > > the object, then configure it (network classifiers in the non-compat > > cases). In the network device case I suppose the later should work > > fine since a device needs to be set UP in a second action before > > it really does anything. > > Looking at br_netlink.c it seems that this sort of contradicts why > generic netlink was done, now all the sudden everything that wants to > create new links need its own netlink protocol number, no? > > johannes Bridging is different since there was already a bridge protocol number assigned, there was no point in doing generic netlink. --- Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
