From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 20:10:11 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 2/2] ppp: add rtnetlink device creation support Message-Id: <20160429.161011.1162718802493722811.davem@davemloft.net> List-Id: References: <20160428155530.GA24359@alphalink.fr> In-Reply-To: <20160428155530.GA24359@alphalink.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: g.nault@alphalink.fr Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org, paulus@samba.org, stephen@networkplumber.org, wharms@bfs.de From: Guillaume Nault Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 17:55:30 +0200 > Define PPP device handler for use with rtnetlink. > The only PPP specific attribute is IFLA_PPP_DEV_FD. It is mandatory and > contains the file descriptor of the associated /dev/ppp instance (the > file descriptor which would have been used for ioctl(PPPIOCNEWUNIT) in > the ioctl-based API). The PPP device is removed when this file > descriptor is released (same behaviour as with ioctl based PPP > devices). > > PPP devices created with the rtnetlink API behave like the ones created > with ioctl(PPPIOCNEWUNIT). In particular existing ioctls work the same > way, no matter how the PPP device was created. > The rtnl callbacks are also assigned to ioctl based PPP devices. This > way, rtnl messages have the same effect on any PPP devices. > The immediate effect is that all PPP devices, even ioctl-based > ones, can now be removed with "ip link del". > > A minor difference still exists between ioctl and rtnl based PPP > interfaces: in the device name, the number following the "ppp" prefix > corresponds to the PPP unit number for ioctl based devices, while it is > just an unrelated incrementing index for rtnl ones. > > Signed-off-by: Guillaume Nault Series applied, thanks for doing this work!