[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220810214701.46565016@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2022 21:47:01 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
pabeni@...hat.com, sdf@...gle.com, jacob.e.keller@...el.com,
vadfed@...com, johannes@...solutions.net, jiri@...nulli.us,
dsahern@...nel.org, fw@...len.de, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 0/4] ynl: YAML netlink protocol descriptions
On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 21:15:34 -0700 Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> Would rather this be part of iproute2 rather than requiring it
> to be maintained separately and part of the kernel tree.
I don't understand what you're trying to say. What is "this",
what is "separate" from what?
Did I fall victim of the "if the cover letter is too long nobody
actually reads it" problem? Or am I simply too tired to parse?
iproute2 is welcome to use the protocol descriptions like any other
user space, but I'm intending to codegen kernel code based on the YAML:
>> On the kernel side the YAML spec can be used to generate:
>> - the C uAPI header
>> - documentation of the protocol as a ReST file
>> - policy tables for input attribute validation
>> - operation tables
So how can it not be in the kernel tree?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists