[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:00:54 -0500
From: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
To: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch 1/5] Network Drop Monitor: Add netlink protocol
identifer
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 09:20:06PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> Hi Neil.
>
> On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 12:00:14PM -0500, Neil Horman (nhorman@...driver.com) wrote:
> >
> > Network Drop Monitor: Add Netlink protocol identifier
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
> >
> >
> > netlink.h | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/netlink.h b/include/linux/netlink.h
> > index 1e6bf99..d4ac636 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/netlink.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/netlink.h
> > @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
> > /* leave room for NETLINK_DM (DM Events) */
> > #define NETLINK_SCSITRANSPORT 18 /* SCSI Transports */
> > #define NETLINK_ECRYPTFS 19
> > +#define NETLINK_DRPMON 20 /* Netork packet drop alerts */
> >
> > #define MAX_LINKS 32
> >
>
> Why do you want to use own family instead of using existing netlink
> helpers like connector or genetlink?
>
Because this is its own protocol. I could have used NETLINK_GENERIC I suppose,
but this is a feature that, if used is going to be commonly built into the
kernel, I see no need to add an additional step of making userspace search for a
protocol registered to NETLINK_GENERIC when we dont need to. In other words,
why not define my own protocol?
Neil
> --
> Evgeniy Polyakov
>
--
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