* Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-07-28 14:39 > It sounds like you main concern is that I'm not using the netlink > attribute interfaces, yes? I looked at using those originally but > decided not to use them for the following reasons: > > 1. They are listed as "optional" in the documents I read > 2. They add at least an extra 32 bits to each attribute > 3. There seems to be plenty of users in net/ipv4 who do not make > use of attributes (a *quick* look again reveals none) > 4. Since I'm reading messages from userspace I can't trust the > message contents regardless of it's use of attributes > 5. Harder to work with in userspace without using a netlink > library, which would create an extra dependency for tools which > talk to the NetLabel subsystem > > Basically, I saw no requirement to use the netlink attributes and no > advantage so I didn't. Is this reasonable, or do you feel the use of > attributes is a requirement?
Not a requirement but I would encourage it. Almost all netlink families are using attributes with a few exceptions. We just used to call them rtattr defined in rtnetlink.h before the new api was added. There is one huge advantage in using attributes which is that your protocol is extendable without breaking binary interfaces. What I'm refering to primarly are the existing functions to write netlink and genetlink headers etc. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
