[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070712.032727.07453420.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 03:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: johnpol@....mipt.ru
Cc: andmike@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, agk@...hat.com,
dm-devel@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [2.6.23 PATCH 13/18] dm: netlink
From: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:10:29 +0400
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 04:37:36PM -0700, Mike Anderson (andmike@...ibm.com) wrote:
> > > > --- linux.orig/include/linux/netlink.h 2007-07-11 21:37:31.000000000 +0100
> > > > +++ linux/include/linux/netlink.h 2007-07-11 21:37:50.000000000 +0100
> > > > @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
> > > > #define NETLINK_DNRTMSG 14 /* DECnet routing messages */
> > > > #define NETLINK_KOBJECT_UEVENT 15 /* Kernel messages to userspace */
> > > > #define NETLINK_GENERIC 16
> > > > -/* leave room for NETLINK_DM (DM Events) */
> > > > +#define NETLINK_DM 17 /* Device Mapper */
> > > > #define NETLINK_SCSITRANSPORT 18 /* SCSI Transports */
> > > > #define NETLINK_ECRYPTFS 19
> > >
> > > Have the net guys checked this?
> >
> > No. The support is a derivative of the netlink support in
> > scsi_transport_iscsi.c.
>
> I'm not sure about all net guys, but the first question rised after
> reading this - why do you want special netlink family and do not want to
> use interfaces created on top of - like connector and genetlink?
I agree, there is really no reason to not at least use
genetlink.
-
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists