[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49A3BCCF.9040203@trash.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:24:31 +0100
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To: James Chapman <jchapman@...alix.com>
CC: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] l2tp: introduce L2TPv3 support
James Chapman wrote:
> 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.
From a quick look, it seems you're (also) managing sessions, for
which rtnl_link might not be the best choice. Could you give a
short overview of the operations you need to be able to perform?
--
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