On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 21:47:01 -0700 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 21:15:34 -0700 Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > Would rather this be part of iproute2 rather than requiring it > > to be maintained separately and part of the kernel tree. > > I don't understand what you're trying to say. What is "this", > what is "separate" from what? I am saying that ynl could live as a standalone project or as part of the iproute2 tools collection. > > Did I fall victim of the "if the cover letter is too long nobody > actually reads it" problem? Or am I simply too tired to parse? > > iproute2 is welcome to use the protocol descriptions like any other > user space, but I'm intending to codegen kernel code based on the YAML: Ok, that makes sense then. I was hoping that user configuration of network devices could be done with YAML. But probably that is best left networkd, netplan, and others. > >> On the kernel side the YAML spec can be used to generate: > >> - the C uAPI header > >> - documentation of the protocol as a ReST file > >> - policy tables for input attribute validation > >> - operation tables > > So how can it not be in the kernel tree? As code generator then sure.
