DM> This is gross. You can't do things this way. Okay, fair enough. DM> This misdesign is also why you find a need to get at the RTNL link DM> ops too. You have no infrastructure for doing what you need to do DM> generically, so instead you are forced to directly call into DM> drivers and export RTNL internals needlessly. Stepping back, RTNL itself seems like the proper generic interface. Would you agree? At first, it seemed overkill to pack the information into message buffers just to have the rest of RTNL unpack them, which is why I mis-did what I did. I think you've make it clear that that overhead is worth the reuse. Would that be more palatable? Thanks! -- Dan Smith IBM Linux Technology Center email: danms@xxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
