Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>>I still think adding a IFLA_PARTNER or a custom attribute is cleaner >>>in this case. Slight semantic mismatches are the worst design bugs >>>to correct. >> >> >>Indeed, IFLA_PARTNER sounds like a better idea. I just suggested to >>Pavel to create only a single device per newlink operation and binding >>them later, what do you think about that? > > > I don't think it solves much because we still need a way to report the > partner device.
I was thinking of something like this: ip link add veth0 type veth ip link add veth1 partner veth0 type veth ip would resolve veth0 to an ifindex and set IFLA_PARTNER. But Alexey just raised a few good points, so this might not work. > On the actual using side I think it makes the core of the driver much > more difficult to get right. > > Basically if we can't count on having a partner device we have to > add NULL pointer checks and locking to the packet dispatch which > is otherwise unnecessary. All you'd need to do is keep the queue stopped until the device is bound. No changes to rx or tx path neccessary. - 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
