On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 02:26:58PM -0600, David Ahern wrote: > On 5/18/17 10:24 PM, David Ahern wrote: > > On 5/18/17 3:02 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > >> So effectively this means libmnl has to be used for new stuff, noone > >> has time to do the work to convert the existing tooling over (which > >> by itself might be a challenge in testing everything to make sure > >> there are no regressions) given there's not much activity around > >> lib/libnetlink.c anyway, and existing users not using libmnl today > >> won't see/notice new improvements on netlink side when they do an > >> upgrade. So we'll be stuck with that dual library mess pretty much > >> for a very long time. :( > > > > lib/libnetlink.c with all of its duplicate functions weighs in at just > > 947 LOC -- a mere 12% of the code in lib/. From a total SLOC of iproute2 > > it is a negligible part of the code base. > > > > Given that, there is very little gain -- but a lot of risk in > > regressions -- in converting such a small, low level code base to libmnl > > just for the sake of using a library - something Phil noted in his > > cursory attempt at converting ip to libmnl. ie., The level effort > > required vs the benefit is just not worth it. > > > > There are so many other parts of the ip code base that need work with a > > much higher return on the time investment. > > > > Stephen: It has been 3 months since the first extack patches were posted > and still nothing in iproute2, all of it hung up on your decision to > require libmnl. Do you plan to finish the libmnl support any time soon > and send out patches?
FWIIW I would also like to see some way to get this enhancement accepted.
