On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 03:04:54PM +0100, Sven Eckelmann wrote: > On Thursday, 14 February 2019 14:44:52 CET Linus Lüssing wrote: > [...] > > > No new sysfs config files. > > > > Why? The bridge for instance does the same. > > https://patchwork.open-mesh.org/patch/16763/ - here the quote > > On Samstag, 29. Oktober 2016 12:33:01 CEST Jiri Pirko wrote: > > I strongly believe it is a huge mistake to use sysfs for things like > > this. This should be done via generic netlink api. > > We don't need to configuration interfaces - we only need the preferred one. > If > this is sysfs for you guys then we should not have started with generic > netlink at all. And why wasn't this brought up now *after* the stuff was > merged by David. It isn't the first time that I've stated clearly that there > should be no new sysfs configuration files when we switch to genl. > > If it now preferred to have sysfs again for configuration then please discuss > it with the netdev folks and find out how the new generic netlink interface > can be removed again before the next release. > > Kind regards, > Sven
Sorry, then this is all my misunderstanding. I have no issue with removing the sysfs part from this patch (I liked sysfs for prototyping/testing/scripting, but as we have all configuration options available in batctl that works for me, too). Thanks for the clarifications. Regards, Linus
