> 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?
I agree about debugfs. As i already said, i've played with netlink and
netns. I changed my debugfs patch, so that it only creates files for
the default netns. For all other netns, debugfs operations become a
NOP, and you need to use netns.
Andrew
