[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190826095548.4d4843fe@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 09:55:48 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
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 Mon, 26 Aug 2019 18:09:16 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> DaveA, Roopa. Do you insist on doing add/remove of altnames in the
> existing setlist command using embedded message op attrs? I'm asking
> because after some time thinking about it, it still feels wrong to me :/
>
> If this would be a generic netlink api, we would just add another couple
> of commands. What is so different we can't add commands here?
> It is also much simpler code. Easy error handling, no need for
> rollback, no possibly inconsistent state, etc.
+1 the separate op feels like a better uapi to me as well.
Perhaps we could redo the iproute2 command line interface to make the
name the primary object? Would that address your concern Dave and Roopa?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists