On Sat, 21 May 2022 12:45:46 -0400 Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 10:31:02PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > I want to circulate this and get some comments and feedback, and if > > > no one raises any serious objections - I'd love to get collaborators > > > to work on this with me. Flame away! > > > > Hi Kent > > > > I doubt you will get much interest from netdev. netdev already > > considers ioctl as legacy, and mostly uses netlink and a message > > passing structure, which is easy to extend in a backwards compatible > > manor. > > The more I look at netlink the more I wonder what on earth it's targeted at or > was trying to solve. It must exist for a reason, but I've written a few ioctls > myself and I can't fathom a situation where I'd actually want any of the stuff > netlink provides. Netlink was built for networking operations, you want to set something like a route with a large number of varying parameters in one transaction. And you don't want to have to invent a new system call every time a new option is added. Also, you want to monitor changes and see these events for a userspace control application such as a routing daemon.
