Thanks, both applied.
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 02:07:21PM -0800, Alex Wang wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:49:40AM -0800, Alex Wang wrote:
> > > Both patches look good to me,
> > >
> >
Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense.
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:49:40AM -0800, Alex Wang wrote:
> > Both patches look good to me,
> >
> > One comment below,
> >
> >
> > > @@ -4432,57 +4432,38 @@ netdev_stats_from_rtnl_link_stats(struct
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:49:40AM -0800, Alex Wang wrote:
> Both patches look good to me,
>
> One comment below,
>
>
> > @@ -4432,57 +4432,38 @@ netdev_stats_from_rtnl_link_stats(struct
> > netdev_stats *dst,
> > static int
> > get_stats_via_netlink(const struct netdev *netdev_, struct netdev
Both patches look good to me,
One comment below,
> @@ -4432,57 +4432,38 @@ netdev_stats_from_rtnl_link_stats(struct
> netdev_stats *dst,
> static int
> get_stats_via_netlink(const struct netdev *netdev_, struct netdev_stats
> *stats)
> {
> -/* Policy for RTNLGRP_LINK messages.
> - *
>
There's no need to obtain the ifindex, because RTM_GETLINK is happy to take
the interface name. There's no need to do a full nl_policy_parse(),
because we only need a single attribute.
Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff
---
lib/netdev-linux.c | 53 +---
1
