[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48F0C8B8.7010400@trash.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:39:36 +0200
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: gre: minor cleanups in netlink interface
Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 04:45:48PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> Its actually also what defines the difference between using
>> NLM_F_REPLACE (ip link replace) and no flags (ip link change).
>> The former replaces the replaces the object, the later changes
>> an existing object.
>
> That wasn't the case historically. For routing NLM_F_REPLACE
> had a real meaning because you can have routes that differ only
> by scope. So if you considered routes that are otherwise the
> same to be duplicate routes, then NLM_F_REPLACE tells you whether
> you're allowed to create a new route or you must modify one
> of the existing ones. Of course completely duplicate routes
> where everything is equal is not allowed.
Interesting, I wasn't aware of that.
> Of course NLM_F_REPLACE has since been seconded for other purposes
> so I suppose it can mean whatever you want for rtnl link :)
It actually not supported currently because replacement of links
(while keeping routes etc.) would be highly complicated.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists