On Fri, 2006-17-11 at 18:53 -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > jamal wrote: > I think we are best off punting on the userspace as there a multiple ways to > do > it: use good ole fashioned socket calls, the libnl library, or some other way > that hasn't been written yet. Besides, Thomas already has some pretty good > userspace documentation written for libnl; no sense in duplicating that > effort. >
That has been my thinking as well. Looking at just the comments in the code for the attribute stuff I think Thomas has done an excellent job in documenting. I havent looked at libnl in many moons (and dont have time at the moment) - but it would be the right thing for a newbie/usability approach. In my tutorial I am not going to use it mostly because of lack of time to figure out things (have to get out about 100 slides done by monday). I already know how to use libnetlink and i have already added patches to iproute2 for genetlink - so i am going to use those. I will send you the tutorial so you can see what i mean. > That said, there is a kernel space example and a field breakdown; did that > look > okay? It did. Just the little nitpicks i mentioned (like error checks etc). I will stare at it some more later. > If the content is good but the layout is off we can always move it up > closer to the top of the document. If the content needs work lets deal with > that first ... > I think moving it up first may make it more usable. If i find this doc, cutnpaste, change variable names, load it, refine it further to do what i want ... that would be ideal. > Well, if we are talking about *needs* then nobody really needs more than the > source code. I am not entirely sure i buy that anymore these days. [The shock i had at some point is that the majority of linux users are not subscribers to "the code is the message" philosophy. This was a shock to me because the crowd i typically associate with always delivers that message "Look at the source and you shall be healed"]. > IMHO the main reason for documentation is to help speed along the > understanding of the code so it becomes more accessibile. I can see their > being > value for including both section I and section II material in the document. > sure, sure. And in the complex case, source is useless if you dont know what is being coded. > > I know this is a big change, so it will depend on how much time you > > have. I also think people may be happy with it in its current form. It > > would be nice to get feedback from someone who has used it. > > Well, it's Friday night and I've got a big football game to watch tommorrow so > I'm probably not going to devote much time to this until Monday. Take it easy, no rush. > Let's see what > other people have to say in the meantime. We can always just submit/post it > and play with it as time permits. > indeed. > One of the main reasons I wanted to post my changes is because I found your > original document helpful when writing NetLabel but I didn't know about when I > started because it wasn't located in the usual places (I had to pick it out of > the mailing list archives). I think having a Generic Netlink document in > Documentation/ and/or on the OSDL network wiki is a good thing - even if it > isn't perfect. > I tend to be conservative when pushing to the kernel(you should see the patches i am sitting on;->). But if you are brave, go ahead and submit it. Perhaps you can put the doc somewhere, and send a url patch to the kernel and then keep updating the web version. > Don't take it personally, it's just step one in my master plan to remove all > references too "googah" from the english language. Muwahahaha! > hehe. That would be hard unless you get rid of certain cartoon characters ;-> > I tend to like the actual references closer to the referring text (I dislike > scrolling) but I'm not too hung up on this, I can move it. Your mileage may vary. Your call - The formal way is you have them at the end. > Yeah, I stuggled with that the entire time I was writing that draft. I'm > still > not entirely happy with it either but I decided that I was tired of worrying > about it so I just sent it out. > > I don't remember a section on terminology in your original doc, but I'll go > back > and check. > If it is not there, I suggest just adding it in II. > Hey, anybody who sends me text that doesn't include the phrase "Justin > Timberlake Rocks" gets to be a {co}author. [Is Justin Timberlake the fella who got the FCC involved in Janet Jacksons mammary glands? If, yes, he rocks!] > I'm just trying to keep the document > alive. > A noble effort. And i dont want to stress you with more work - As it is it is not bad, it could just be better ;-> (famous last words?) > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foobar > > My favorite wikipedia page -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Scientist Hey, how did my picture get there? ;-> cheers, jamal - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html