On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 01:33:28PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 09:51:53 -0700 Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 18:30:55 +0200 Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > > Out of curiosity: Why does the tool need an explicit ack for each > > > command? As mentioned above, this consumes a lot netlink bandwidth. > > > > I think that the tool is sort of besides the point, it's just a PoC. > > The point is that we're trying to describe netlink protocols in machine > > readable fashion. Which in turn makes it possible to write netlink > > binding generators in any language, like modern RPC frameworks. > > For that to work we need protocol basics to be followed. > > > > That's not to say that we're going to force all netlink families to > > change to follow extra new rules. Just those that want to be accessed > > via the bindings. > > Pablo, any thoughts? Convinced? Given this touches YNL in significant > ways I'd prefer to merge it to net-next. No objections, thanks for asking.
