From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= Subject: Re: wip-netlink Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 23:03:19 +0200 Message-ID: <87mukx8tew.fsf@gnu.org> References: <875zrov80a.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:44197) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hEKNP-00052q-Kj for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 17:03:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?Q?=22G=C3=A1bor?= Boskovits"'s message of "Wed, 10 Apr 2019 08:18:49 +0200") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= Boskovits Cc: Guix-devel Hi G=C3=A1bor, G=C3=A1bor Boskovits skribis: > Yes, now I do. I was not well, and had to skip a whole week of work, > then I got overwhelmed when > I got back. I=E2=80=99m sorry to hear that, I hope you=E2=80=99re feeling better now. > I will start working on this again soon. Help is appreciated however, > so if anyone is willing to have a look into this, that would be > great. I feel I have most of the data structures in place, I will > finish up the defines, which are not completed (I will have to hunt > the headers fo the proper sizes), and I am thinking about creating a > little abstraction on top of the netlinkmsg, so that we can add > attributes with the proper 4 byte alignment required by netlink. Then > I will create a wrapper for the syscalls. After that however we should > discuss how to actually finish this up, I belive that this could be > done in two steps, at first expoose the functionality for testing, > without a reliable command transfer, then add in the acknowledge > handling later. Wdyt? That sounds promising. I don=E2=80=99t have an opinion on how to move forw= ard in terms of code since I=E2=80=99m not sufficiently familiar with netlink. With respect to 1.0, I wonder whether we should start a backup plan where we simply call out to =E2=80=98ip=E2=80=99. That way, we can develop= the netlink API without pressure and start using it instead of =E2=80=98ip=E2=80=99 whe= n it=E2=80=99s ready. We also need to think about adjustments to be made to =E2=80=98static-networking-service=E2=80=99 so that it covers important use= cases. What do people think? If you=E2=80=99ve ever experienced the shortcomings of =E2=80=98static-networking-service=E2=80=99 and had to work around it, plea= se share the interface that you=E2=80=99d like to see! Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.