[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240221112644.3d8c4c5a@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 11:26:44 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov
<ast@...nel.org>, Amritha Nambiar <amritha.nambiar@...el.com>, "David S.
Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jesper
Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>, Larysa Zaremba
<larysa.zaremba@...el.com>, Maciej Fijalkowski
<maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Sridhar
Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>, Stanislav Fomichev
<sdf@...gle.com>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] Expose netdev name in netdev netlink APIs
On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 11:21:23 -0800 Joe Damato wrote:
> > For context, the reason why I left the names out is that they can change
> > at any moment, but primarily because there are also altnames now:
> >
> > 2: eth0:
> > [...]
> > altname enp2s0np0
> >
> > Most of the APIs try to accept altnames as well as the "main" name.
> > If we propagate the name we'll step back into the rtnetlink naming
> > mess :(
>
> OK, I see. I didn't realize this was a thing. I suppose what you are saying
> is that we wouldn't want to expose names at all and stick with ifindexes
> only, is that right?
If you think it's a major usability improvement I can be convinced,
but yes, leaving the names out initially was indeed intentional.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists