> On 25 Jan 2017, at 16:48, Alex Gartrell <agartr...@fb.com> wrote: > > > If nbd were *all* netlink I think that that'd be fine, but you'd have > problems implementing the NBD_DOIT function in that fashion. So I'd > rather stick to the char device ioctl thing because it's more > consistent with the old NBD stuff as well as the loop device stuff.
I spend most of my time looking at the userspace side of NBD so apologies if this is off base. Given (because of NBD_DO_IT) we need an ioctl anyway, and we have an ioctl that isn't going to go away, it would seem better if possible to stick with ioctls, and not introduce either a dependency on netlink (which would presumably bloat static binaries that are used early in the boot process). Personally I'd have thought adding a new NBD ioctl (or extending an existing one) would be less entropy than adding a new char device. -- Alex Bligh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Nbd-general mailing list Nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nbd-general
