From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 10 Sep 2001 04:06:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 10 Sep 2001 04:06:07 -0400 Received: from khan.acc.umu.se ([130.239.18.139]:63116 "EHLO khan.acc.umu.se") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 10 Sep 2001 04:05:50 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 10:05:37 +0200 From: David Weinehall To: Alan Cox , Wietse Venema , kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-net@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] ioctl SIOCGIFNETMASK: ip alias bug 2.4.9 and 2.2.19 Message-ID: <20010910100537.W26627@khan.acc.umu.se> In-Reply-To: <20010906181826.9CCECBC06C@spike.porcupine.org> <20010906221359.G13547@emma1.emma.line.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: <20010906221359.G13547@emma1.emma.line.org>; from matthias.andree@stud.uni-dortmund.de on Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 10:13:59PM +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 10:13:59PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: > On Thu, 06 Sep 2001, Alan Cox wrote: > > > I think you have the metaphor wrong. The older API is a bit like the > > cavalry charging into battle at the start of world war one. It may have been > > how everyone did it but they guys with the "newfangled, really not how it > > should be done, definitely not cricket" machine guns got the last laugh > > Alan, portability is an issue or Linux will lose. Admittedly, legacy > interfaces do not support all of those new features, but a rather > trivial patch of mine brings SIOCGIFNETMASK compatibility with both the > old and the new stuff, please name precisely the objections against > portability and compatibility with FreeBSD 4.x aliasing. Are you saying that Linux should implement compability with _new_ features in FreeBSD 4.x, while at the same time frowning at the fact that Linux introduces a new API?! The mind boggles at the thought. Please accept, that sometimes, just sometimes, there is a superior way to do something, and implementing support for that might not be such a bad idea after all. Whining about this causing "bloat and maintainance nightmares" (no, not a direct quote, sorry for that) doesn't cut it, because there are probably more Linux-machines running the software than any BSD-machines, thus the netlink-code will get _more_ testing than the legacy API. /David Weinehall _ _ // David Weinehall /> Northern lights wander \\ // Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky // \> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/