On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 18:15 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: > No, generic netlink avoids allocating netlink families. Well, yes, I thought that was pretty much the point. :) > br_netlink > uses the same netlink family as the other network configuration stuff > (NETLINK_ROUTE), but a different rtgen_family (which matches the > address families). Ah ok. I got all the family types confused then. > But you have a valid point, if we want to use > this for things like bonding or VLAN that aren't actually address > families, we should consider introducing "rtnetlink families" to > avoid adding AF_BONDING, AF_8021Q etc. True. But this still doesn't help wireless which doesn't have either an rtnetlink family nor an address family since it uses generic netlink exclusively. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
