On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 1:31 AM Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote:
>
> Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 03:37:26AM CEST, dsah...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On 8/11/19 7:34 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> >> On 8/10/19 12:30 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >>> Could you please write me an example message of add/remove?
> >>
> >> altnames are for existing netdevs, yes? existing netdevs have an id and
> >> a name - 2 existing references for identifying the existing netdev for
> >> which an altname will be added. Even using the altname as the main
> >> 'handle' for a setlink change, I see no reason why the GETLINK api can
> >> not take an the IFLA_ALT_IFNAME and return the full details of the
> >> device if the altname is unique.
> >>
> >> So, what do the new RTM commands give you that you can not do with
> >> RTM_*LINK?
> >>
> >
> >
> >To put this another way, the ALT_NAME is an attribute of an object - a
> >LINK. It is *not* a separate object which requires its own set of
> >commands for manipulating.
>
> Okay, again, could you provide example of a message to add/remove
> altname using existing setlink message? Thanks!
Will the below work ?... just throwing an example for discussion:
make the name list a nested list
IFLA_ALT_NAMES
IFLA_ALT_NAME_OP /* ADD or DEL used with setlink */
IFLA_ALT_NAME
IFLA_ALT_NAME_LIST
With RTM_NEWLINK you can specify a list to set and unset
With RTM_SETLINK you can specify an individual name with a add or del op
notifications will always be RTM_NEWLINK with the full list.
The nested attribute can be structured differently.
Only thing is i am worried about increasing the size of link dump and
notification msgs.
What is the limit on the number of names again ?
