netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] l2tp: introduce L2TPv3 support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:17:18 +0000
From:	James Chapman <jchapman@...alix.com>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] l2tp: introduce L2TPv3 support

Herbert Xu wrote:
> James Chapman <jchapman@...alix.com> wrote:
>> This patch series implements L2TPv3. It replaces the existing pppol2tp
>> driver with a number of separate drivers, namely:-
>>
>> l2tp_core    - L2TP driver core. Always required.
>> l2tp_ppp     - L2TP PPP
>> l2tp_eth     - L2TPv3 ethernet pseudowire
>> l2tp_ip      - L2TPv3 IP encapsulation
>> l2tp_netlink - L2TPv3 netlink API
> 
> Have you thought by using the rtnl_link_ops interface instead
> of your own netlink API?

I did, yes. I decided against it only because I didn't want to cause
confusion with what I perhaps wrongly perceive as an API for managing
net devices. In the L2TPv3 case, there might not be a netdev directly
associated with a newlink API call, for example. I've no problem with
switching the code to use it if it is preferred.

-- 
James Chapman
Katalix Systems Ltd
http://www.katalix.com
Catalysts for your Embedded Linux software development

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html