On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Stephen Hemminger
<step...@networkplumber.org> wrote:
> It is up to you but I doubt that code with new private ioctl's will be
> accepted upstream. If you want full review then post for inclusion upstream.
> If you just want to maintain it is a private fork, go ahead and do what
> you want and suffer the consequences.

Obviously I'm going for upstream conclusion and not willing to "suffer
the consequences", hence my email in the first place. Given that you
seem most interested in netlink, might you have any constructive
suggestions on how netlink might be used with very large atomic
messages?

Reply via email to