Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 05:13:39PM CEST, ro...@cumulusnetworks.com wrote: >On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 1:31 AM Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> 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! > >Will the below work ?... just throwing an example for discussion: > >make the name list a nested list >IFLA_ALT_NAMES > IFLA_ALT_NAME_OP /* ADD or DEL used with setlink */
This is exacly what I tried to avoid. Providing an OP within a message is weird. So I wanted to do it rather in the way similar to NEIGH for example, where you have new/del commands. > IFLA_ALT_NAME > IFLA_ALT_NAME_LIST > >With RTM_NEWLINK you can specify a list to set and unset >With RTM_SETLINK you can specify an individual name with a add or del op > >notifications will always be RTM_NEWLINK with the full list. > >The nested attribute can be structured differently. > >Only thing is i am worried about increasing the size of link dump and >notification msgs. > >What is the limit on the number of names again ? No limit.
