[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1295456377.2184.2.camel@mojatatu>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 11:59:37 -0500
From: jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
arthur.marsh@...ernode.on.net, jengelh@...ozas.de,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: inbound connection problems when "netlink: test for all flags
of the NLM_F_DUMP composite" commit applied
On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 17:54 +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 09:28:06AM -0500, jamal wrote:
> > So here is what i think the criteria should be:
> >
> > If Avahi is popular and widely deployed (I dont use it anywhere), it
> > makes no sense to revert.
> > A middle ground is: instead of rejecting the nonsense passed, maybe a
> > sane thing to do is a kernel warning for a period of time (sort of like
> > feature removal warnings).
>
> I still don't understand why you call this the nonsense.
gah! I already had plenty of caffeine when i typed that.
I meant to say "If Avahi is popular and widely deployed,
it makes sense to revert"
> There are
> two dump flags NLM_F_ROOT and NLM_F_MATCH plus for convenience
> NLM_F_DUMP as 2 in 1. Avahi uses these specific flags. Why would
> anybody have added these specific flags if they can never be used
> separately?
>
> Aside from this question, if we still think it's the nonsense, a
> warning would be nicer.
That is what i was suggesting as well..
cheers,
jamal
--
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