[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230210100915.3fde31dd@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2023 10:09:15 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"open list:NETWORKING [GENERAL]" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"hare@...e.com" <hare@...e.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@...hat.com>,
Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@...app.com>,
"jmeneghi@...hat.com" <jmeneghi@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] net/handshake: Create a NETLINK service for
handling handshake requests
On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 14:17:28 +0000 Chuck Lever III wrote:
> >> I don't think it does, necessarily. But neither does it seem
> >> to add any value (for this use case). <shrug>
> >
> > Our default is to go for generic netlink, it's where we invest most time
> > in terms of infrastructure.
>
> v2 of the series used generic netlink for the downcall piece.
> I can convert back to using generic netlink for v4 of the
> series.
Would you be able to write the spec for it? I'm happy to help with that
as I mentioned. Perhaps you have the user space already hand-written
here but in case the mechanism/family gets reused it'd be sad if people
had to hand write bindings for other programming languages.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists