Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 02:29:13AM CEST, dsah...@gmail.com wrote: >On 8/12/19 3:43 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >> Is not adding commands better because it's easier to deal with the >> RTM_NEWLINK notification? I must say it's unclear from the thread why >> muxing the op through RTM_SETLINK is preferable. IMHO new op is >> cleaner, do we have precedent for such IFLA_.*_OP-style attributes? > >An alternative name for a link is not a primary object; it is only an >attribute of a link and links are manipulated through RTM_*LINK commands.
So? Still, doing the OP thing inside the message feels wrong, "primary object" or now. Why can't the "secondary object" (whatever it is) have separate command? What is the limitation? I'm trying to understand the reason.
