[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b0a9ec0d-c00b-7aaf-46d4-c74d18498698@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2019 19:34:55 -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 8/10/19 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?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists