[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140626074631.GB3049@minipsycho.orion>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 09:46:31 +0200
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, pshelar@...ira.com,
cwang@...pensource.com, nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, david@...son.dropbear.id.au,
sfeldma@...ulusnetworks.com, sucheta.chakraborty@...gic.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v2 1/2] rtnetlink: allow to register ops without
ops->setup set
Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 08:45:00PM CEST, stephen@...workplumber.org wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 18:58:22 +0200
>Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
>
>> So far, it is assumed that ops->setup is filled up. But there might be
>> case that ops might make sense even without ->setup. In that case,
>> forbid to newlink and dellink.
>>
>> This allows to register simple rtnl link ops containing only ->kind.
>> That allows consistent way of passing device kind (either device-kind or
>> slave-kind) to userspace.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
>
>Can't we fix these kind of devices to all create/delete. At least
>allow delete.
>
Well it is not that easy to create openvswitch device. To do that you
have to have info specified in vport_params (see ovs_vport_alloc).
Delete could be implemented. But looking at the code, it could be a bit
tricky. But would that make sense to implement del and don't implement
add? I think it's better to leave both out.
--
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