Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [PATCH v2] batman-adv: Add multicast-to-unicast support for multiple targets

Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [PATCH v2] batman-adv: Add multicast-to-unicast support for multiple targets

[Sven Eckelmann]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1018 bytes --]

On Thursday, 14 February 2019 14:44:52 CET Linus Lüssing wrote:
[...]
> > No new sysfs config files.
> 
> Why? The bridge for instance does the same.

https://patchwork.open-mesh.org/patch/16763/ - here the quote

On Samstag, 29. Oktober 2016 12:33:01 CEST Jiri Pirko wrote:
> I strongly believe it is a huge mistake to use sysfs for things like
> this. This should be done via generic netlink api.

We don't need to configuration interfaces - we only need the preferred one. If 
this is sysfs for you guys then we should not have started with generic 
netlink at all. And why wasn't this brought up now *after* the stuff was 
merged by David. It isn't the first time that I've stated clearly that there 
should be no new sysfs configuration files when we switch to genl.

If it now preferred to have sysfs again for configuration then please discuss 
it with the netdev folks and find out how the new generic netlink interface 
can be removed again before the next release.

Kind regards,
	Sven

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [PATCH v2] batman-adv: Add multicast-to-unicast support for multiple targets

[Linus Lüssing]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 03:04:54PM +0100, Sven Eckelmann wrote:
> On Thursday, 14 February 2019 14:44:52 CET Linus Lüssing wrote:
> [...]
> > > No new sysfs config files.
> > 
> > Why? The bridge for instance does the same.
> 
> https://patchwork.open-mesh.org/patch/16763/ - here the quote
> 
> On Samstag, 29. Oktober 2016 12:33:01 CEST Jiri Pirko wrote:
> > I strongly believe it is a huge mistake to use sysfs for things like
> > this. This should be done via generic netlink api.
> 
> We don't need to configuration interfaces - we only need the preferred one. If 
> this is sysfs for you guys then we should not have started with generic 
> netlink at all. And why wasn't this brought up now *after* the stuff was 
> merged by David. It isn't the first time that I've stated clearly that there 
> should be no new sysfs configuration files when we switch to genl.
> 
> If it now preferred to have sysfs again for configuration then please discuss 
> it with the netdev folks and find out how the new generic netlink interface 
> can be removed again before the next release.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 	Sven

Sorry, then this is all my misunderstanding. I have no issue with
removing the sysfs part from this patch (I liked sysfs for
prototyping/testing/scripting, but as we have all configuration
options available in batctl that works for me, too).

Thanks for the clarifications.

Regards, Linus