On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 12:46 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: > Not totally different, so far I think we should use the same attributes > as for RTM_SETLINK messages and include the device-specific stuff in > IFLA_PROTINFO, which is symetric to what the kernel sends in RTM_NETLINK > messages (see br_netlink.c for an example). The easiest case would be an > empty IFLA_PROTINFO attribute, which would simply create a device > without any configuration.
I'll have to look up these things. > The main advantage that we don't get more weird sysfs/proc/ioctl based > interfaces Please don't put me into a corner I don't want to be in ;) The new wireless stuff was completely designed using netlink. The sysfs interface to these two specific things was a concession since it used to exist before and we don't really have a fully functional userspace tool yet. > and use the same interface that is used for all other network > configuration, which f.e. will allow to add support for all software > devices to iproute without much effort, so you don't need 30 different > tools for configuring the different software device types anymore. > Additionally we get atomic setup/dumps and extensibility. I don't think wireless can get away without a new tool. So much stuff there. Look at http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.git;a=blob;f=include/linux/nl80211.h;hb=HEAD johannes
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
