On 8/12/19 2:31 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 03:37:26AM CEST, dsah...@gmail.com wrote: >> On 8/11/19 7:34 PM, David Ahern wrote: >>> On 8/10/19 12:30 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>>> Could you please write me an example message of add/remove? >>> >>> altnames are for existing netdevs, yes? existing netdevs have an id and >>> a name - 2 existing references for identifying the existing netdev for >>> which an altname will be added. Even using the altname as the main >>> 'handle' for a setlink change, I see no reason why the GETLINK api can >>> not take an the IFLA_ALT_IFNAME and return the full details of the >>> device if the altname is unique. >>> >>> So, what do the new RTM commands give you that you can not do with >>> RTM_*LINK? >>> >> >> >> To put this another way, the ALT_NAME is an attribute of an object - a >> LINK. It is *not* a separate object which requires its own set of >> commands for manipulating. > > Okay, again, could you provide example of a message to add/remove > altname using existing setlink message? Thanks! >
Examples from your cover letter with updates $ ip link set dummy0 altname someothername $ ip link set dummy0 altname someotherveryveryveryverylongname $ ip link set dummy0 del altname someothername $ ip link set dummy0 del altname someotherveryveryveryverylongname This syntactic sugar to what is really happening: RTM_NEWLINK, dummy0, IFLA_ALT_IFNAME if you are allowing many alt names, then yes, you need a flag to say delete this specific one which is covered by Roopa's nested suggestion.
