From: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dich...@6wind.com> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 16:31:11 +0200
> Le 20/08/2015 13:53, Jiri Benc a écrit : >> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 18:33:14 +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote: >>> Probably better to introduce veth netlink attribute then, something >>> like >>> IFLA_VETH_PEER and keeps IFLA_LINK_NETNSID. >> >> I'd prefer IFLA_PEER. More generic attribute will be helpful should we >> introduce an interface similar to veth in the future.s > Ok. > >> >> Also, I'd not combine IFLA_LINK_NETNSID with IFLA_PEER. There might >> very well be an interface in the future that will need both IFLA_LINK >> and >> IFLA_PEER and this would just create a confusion. It may be unlikely >> but the attributes are cheap and it doesn't make sense to design uAPI >> in a way that might bring problems in the future. > Ok, but then this IFLA_PEER can include the ifindex and the nsid. No > need > to have two new attributes. > >> >>> I also don't know what is the best way to handle this. veth advertises >>> its peer via IFLA_LINK since 4.1, so it's too late to change it for >>> this >>> release. >> >> Apparently we need to pick our poison. Either way, we break something. > Sure. I would prefer to have the same mechanism in all version, but I > can > live with the other solution. > > David, any thoughts about this? You can't break the 4.1 semantics, it's in a released kernel and people _ARE_ using it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
