On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 18:15 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:

> No, generic netlink avoids allocating netlink families. 

Well, yes, I thought that was pretty much the point. :)

> br_netlink
> uses the same netlink family as the other network configuration stuff
> (NETLINK_ROUTE), but a different rtgen_family (which matches the
> address families).

Ah ok. I got all the family types confused then.

>  But you have a valid point, if we want to use
> this for things like bonding or VLAN that aren't actually address
> families, we should consider introducing "rtnetlink families" to
> avoid adding AF_BONDING, AF_8021Q etc.

True.

But this still doesn't help wireless which doesn't have either an
rtnetlink family nor an address family since it uses generic netlink
exclusively.

johannes

_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers