18 Apr
2016
18 Apr
'16
2:41 p.m.
Hi Andrew & list,
On Sunday 13 March 2016 16:42:22 Andrew Lunn wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 10:12:07AM +0100, Sven
Eckelmann wrote:
we had a phone discussion with Antonio, Marek, Sven and myself how to move
forward with netlink and namespace support.
We concluded that having proper netlink support would be the more future proof
option. We would then keep debugfs but slowly phase it out in the next coming
years. New features would also be adopted in the netlink implementation.
It was also our impression that having the namespace support within netlink
would be the cleaner approach, although it takes more work because it requires
the netlink and appropriate userspace changes.
Andrew, what do you think? Would you like to check and rebase on Matthias'
patchset?
Thanks,
Simon
On Monday 07 March 2016 15:21:07 Matthias
Schiffer wrote:
[...]
Hi Sven
I would expect the debugfs code to stay around for a while, so people
have a chance to upgrade their batctl and alfred to the new API. We
probably need one release with both? By the way, the netns support is another good
reason to switch from the
debugfs interfaces to a netlink-based interface (as the netlink
interface
wouldn't need userspace applications like batctl to be aware of the
namespaces). I guess I should finally finish the patches I started
writing
for that...
So what is your suggestion here? Should the namespace support for
namespaces be rejected and you send in your netlink implementation
patches? Or should this patch be merged and be removed (together with the
rest of the debugfs stuff) when your netlink support is integrated?