Control: forwarded -1 https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/854088/
On Sat, 2017-12-30 at 01:00 +0100, Andreas Henriksson wrote: > Hello Kiss Gabor (Bitman), > > Following up on old bug report available at > https://bugs.debian.org/661886 > > On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 01:05:47PM +0100, Kiss Gabor (Bitman) wrote: > > Hi Andreas, > > > > > Would be awesome if you where willing to write a patch for this > > > and > > > send it upstream. As you might be aware there are several other > > > areas > > > > No problem. I'll do it. :) > > Was there every any progress on this? > > If not, I have to voice my skeptisism here about documenting what > seems > to be a *linux* limitation in iproute2. > > The relevant code in iproute2 suggests that the netlink protocol does > not have a particular limitation on label length: > > } else if (strcmp(*argv, "label") == 0) { > NEXT_ARG(); > l = *argv; > addattr_l(&req.n, sizeof(req), IFA_LABEL, l, > strlen(l)+1); > > > FWIW, This is similar to the situation in util-linux, where as one > example people usually request fsck and mount document filesystem > specific options. This quickly gets outdated and inconsistent as it > depends on which version of linux you're using and so on. It's much > better if Linux documents its own restrictions and you check the > documentation in the particular version you're using. (The conclusion > in > the util-linux camp has been to stop documenting these things, > although > the existing documentation has not (yet) been fully removed.) > > I'd thus leave the suggestion to the new maintainers to consider > this bug report a wontfix and closing it. > > Regards, > Andreas Henriksson Hi, Given this has been the behaviour forever and it's not likely to change it's probably worth documenting given it's easy to do so - I've sent a small patch upstream. It's not worth backporting though, so we'll get it in the next version at some point. -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
