Julius Volz wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 8:26 AM, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I don't really have any concrete ideas about what a better
interface would look like. But I am more than happy to hash our ideas.
Good! At the moment I'm looking at various netlink docs and figuring
out how things generally work. I think netlink probably adds a lot of
complexity over the previous sockopt interface, but I hope it's worth
it.
As for compatibility and extensibility, how is that best achieved with
netlink? I've seen some examples copy whole C structs into netlink
datagrams, but that is obviously what we don't want anymore. So the
way to go seems to be to transfer each struct field as a separate
netlink attribute, right?
Yes. You can also group those which belong together logically
in nested attributes.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
