[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b43ad33c-ea0c-f441-a550-be0b1d8ca4ef@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 10:01:59 -0600
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>, dcbw@...hat.com,
Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, parav@...lanox.com,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
mlxsw <mlxsw@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [patch net-next rfc 3/7] net: rtnetlink: add commands to add and
delete alternative ifnames
On 8/12/19 2:31 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 03:37:26AM CEST, dsahern@...il.com wrote:
>> On 8/11/19 7:34 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>>> On 8/10/19 12:30 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>> Could you please write me an example message of add/remove?
>>>
>>> altnames are for existing netdevs, yes? existing netdevs have an id and
>>> a name - 2 existing references for identifying the existing netdev for
>>> which an altname will be added. Even using the altname as the main
>>> 'handle' for a setlink change, I see no reason why the GETLINK api can
>>> not take an the IFLA_ALT_IFNAME and return the full details of the
>>> device if the altname is unique.
>>>
>>> So, what do the new RTM commands give you that you can not do with
>>> RTM_*LINK?
>>>
>>
>>
>> To put this another way, the ALT_NAME is an attribute of an object - a
>> LINK. It is *not* a separate object which requires its own set of
>> commands for manipulating.
>
> Okay, again, could you provide example of a message to add/remove
> altname using existing setlink message? Thanks!
>
Examples from your cover letter with updates
$ ip link set dummy0 altname someothername
$ ip link set dummy0 altname someotherveryveryveryverylongname
$ ip link set dummy0 del altname someothername
$ ip link set dummy0 del altname someotherveryveryveryverylongname
This syntactic sugar to what is really happening:
RTM_NEWLINK, dummy0, IFLA_ALT_IFNAME
if you are allowing many alt names, then yes, you need a flag to say
delete this specific one which is covered by Roopa's nested suggestion.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists