On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 03:49:54PM +0100, Oliver Hartkopp wrote: > On 21.01.2011 14:39, Kurt Van Dijck wrote: > > > I resumed work on a j1939 implementation. I got stuck in modifying iproute2 > > since j1939 implies an addressing concept. > > > > If I were to create a netlink interface that allows me to: > > $ ip -f j1939 addr add 0x90 dev can0, > > I would have registered j1939 address operations in a seperate af_family. > > I think this would still be part of AF_CAN ... so: $ ip -f can addr add j1939 0x90 dev can0 ....
That is ok as well > > > I also had a similar problem to connect the userspace tool 'cangw' with the > gw.c in the kernelspace. > > Can the netlink interface to the can-gw be used as an example for your > problem? well, you had indeed the same problem as I do. > > So far you would be the only user to add an additional address via netlink. so far yes. But desinging an API that only works when I'm the only user is guaranteed to have problems sooner or later... > > I don't know if there's another use-case in the future that would require > RTM_???ADDR ... if so we should think about some kind of infrastructure that > can handle these RTM_???ADDR functions for different protocols inside the > protocol family PF_CAN. > > E.g. define a NLMSG struct with the protocol identifier (like CAN_RAW. > CAN_BCM, ... see can.h) being the first element. I do think this would be a good solution, but I feel a bit incapable. I'm not experienced in netlink ... > > Regards, > Oliver _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
