[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3b1e8952-e4c2-9be5-0b5c-d3ce4127cbe2@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2019 19:37:26 -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 8/11/19 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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists