On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 16:59:28 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote: > Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 04:52:49PM CET, kuba@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 16:37:00 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote: > >> Or, even better, move RTnetlink to generic netlink. Really, there is no > >> point to have it as non-generic netlink forever. We moved ethtool there, > >> why not RTnetlink? > > > >As a rewrite? We could plug in the same callbacks into a genl family > >but the replies / notifications would have different headers depending > >on the socket type which gets hairy, no? > > I mean like ethtool, completely side iface, independent, new attrs etc. > We can start with NetdevNetlink for example. Just cover netdev part of > RTNetlink. That is probably most interesting anyway. That came up in conversations about the YAML specs. Major effort but may be worth doing.
