Pavel Emelianov wrote: > Patrick McHardy wrote: > >>Mhh doing it later means dealing with compatibility issues, which >>is why I'm asking now. We currently support IFLA_NAME, IFLA_MTU, > > > Oh, I see. > > >>IFLA_TXQLEN, IFLA_WEIGTH, IFLA_OPERSTATE and IFLA_LINKMODE, and >>with my patch additionally IFLA_ADDRESS and IFLA_BROADCAST. >>AFAICT they are all applicable for the partner link as well. > > > Agree. Maybe it is better to make some generic routine to create the > device with the parameters specified in the netlink packet. Then the > generic code creates one end of a tunnel and calls ->new_link callback. > This callback extracts the PARTNER packet part and calls this generic > routine to create the second pair.
Something like that. Moving the part between NLM_F_CREATE and the ops->newlink call of rtnl_newlink to a new function should work. For now you could even parse the IFLA_PARTNER attribute and nested IFLA_NAME/IFLA_ADDRESS attributes yourself and ignore the rest, this will at least leave us the option of handling it generically later. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
