Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] Fix error report from nl_recvmsg

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Eric Blake <eblake(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > On 03/01/2013 03:18 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >>> >>> So the conclusion is that I see no extra harm in calling nl_geterror(). ACK. >> >> Except the API signature is different, so my patch won't work with >> both versions :-( > > Sounds like its time for a wrapper function that #ifdefs away the > difference in underlying API calls between libnl1 and libnl3, with the > bulk of our code using our wrapper instead of direct nl_* functions. > And by the time we convert our code to all go through our wrappers, how > much simpler is it to have our wrapper do the direct socket work instead > of catering to two parallel nl_ abstractions? > > -- > Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 > Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org > This is the same road I went down with for an application at work. By the time I got close to abstracting away all the badness, I had a working netlink layer and dropped libnl entirely. I wasn't using all the complex gennl types that libnl contains and abstracts however. A reasonable read is libnfnetlink to see how really simple it is to use netlink. https://git.netfilter.org/libnfnetlink/