Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 06:01:59PM CEST, dsah...@gmail.com wrote: >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.
Yeah, so you need and op inside the message. We are on the same page, thanks.
