RE: [PATCH 1/3] [NET-NEXT]: Add DCB netlink interface definition

There isn't much difference really, instead of using the 
separate interface you could simply add a new link attribute 
IFLA_DCB and issue a RTM_SETLINK/RTM_GETLINK and send the 
same information in the same format. However, I agree with 
you that a separate interface is better in this case as dcb 
requests are not directly connected to other link changes at 
all and the dcb message structure is pretty complex.

quoted

3. We wanted to use generic netlink, since that seems to be a more 
preferred method of netlink communication vs. rtnetlink.  

And I don't 

quoted

know anything about the info API, so I can't comment on why 

we didn't 

quoted

look at that for implementation.  Can you suggest something 

for me to 

quoted

look at for the info API so I can see what that's all about?

A prominent user is the VLAN code in net/8021q/vlan_netlink.c

quoted

Thanks Thomas.  Other than that, is there anything in the netlink 
interface that you would suggest to change?

Looks good from here, I didn't read it all line by line though.

Thanks Thomas for the review and comments.

Dave and Jeff, have you two taken a peek at this by chance?

Thanks,
-PJ Waskiewicz