On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 13:31:48 +0200 Simon Horman <simon.hor...@netronome.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 02:26:58PM -0600, David Ahern wrote: > > On 5/18/17 10:24 PM, David Ahern wrote: > > > On 5/18/17 3:02 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > >> So effectively this means libmnl has to be used for new stuff, noone > > >> has time to do the work to convert the existing tooling over (which > > >> by itself might be a challenge in testing everything to make sure > > >> there are no regressions) given there's not much activity around > > >> lib/libnetlink.c anyway, and existing users not using libmnl today > > >> won't see/notice new improvements on netlink side when they do an > > >> upgrade. So we'll be stuck with that dual library mess pretty much > > >> for a very long time. :( > > > > > > lib/libnetlink.c with all of its duplicate functions weighs in at just > > > 947 LOC -- a mere 12% of the code in lib/. From a total SLOC of iproute2 > > > it is a negligible part of the code base. > > > > > > Given that, there is very little gain -- but a lot of risk in > > > regressions -- in converting such a small, low level code base to libmnl > > > just for the sake of using a library - something Phil noted in his > > > cursory attempt at converting ip to libmnl. ie., The level effort > > > required vs the benefit is just not worth it. > > > > > > There are so many other parts of the ip code base that need work with a > > > much higher return on the time investment. > > > > > > > Stephen: It has been 3 months since the first extack patches were posted > > and still nothing in iproute2, all of it hung up on your decision to > > require libmnl. Do you plan to finish the libmnl support any time soon > > and send out patches? > > FWIIW I would also like to see some way to get this enhancement accepted. I will put in the libmnl version. If it doesn't work because no one sent me test cases, then fine. send a patch for that.
