Hi,
Does anybody have additional comments on the HDLC (SIOCDEVICE etc)?
A copy of my previous lkml message follows.
--
Krzysztof Halasa
Network Administrator
Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> writes:
> "SIOCDEVICE" as a constant is unacceptable, so it would need to be
> SIOCWANDEVICE or something similar.
Well, I was probably under impression it should be used for Ethernet
as well (see the Dec 2000 thread)... Now I think I know people
using Ethernet (with full duplex over SM fibre) for WAN connections
- so SIOCWANDEVICE is ok. Not sure about TR, though - anyone using
it for WAN networking?
> SIOCETHTOOL, for example, is an ioctl which actually provides
> sub-ioctls, so that is probably a good model to follow.
SIOCDEVICE^WSIOCWANDEVICE of course has sub-ioctls as well. It is
obviously impossible without them.
I do _not_ want to fight any ETHTOOL vs SIOCDEVICE etc. battle here.
What I want is creating the best interface for controlling network
devices. Including Token Ring and Ethernet, unless there are valid
reasons to do otherwise.
I think we should concentrate on the interface first, then I will
patch the HDLC implementation.
If we're here... maybe we should really drop using the ifreq structure
and _replace_ it with better one (variable-sized)? It can be done
gradually, as both are quite compatible.
--
Krzysztof Halasa
Krzysztof Halasa <[email protected]> writes (10 Feb):
> Does anybody have additional comments on the HDLC (SIOCDEVICE etc)?
[there was none]
Fine then. I'm going out to mountains Friday, for a month, and will have
no phone/net access there. Hope something will clear out in the meantime,
or the HDLC thing would stay out of the official kernel if that's what
developers want.
--
Krzysztof Halasa
Network Administrator