[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140820104901.2bbf9965@uryu.home.lan>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 10:49:01 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To: Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, j.vosburgh@...il.com, vfalico@...il.com,
andy@...yhouse.net, nikolay@...hat.com, dingtianhong@...wei.com,
sfeldma@...ulusnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next] bonding: create netlink event when bonding
option is changed
On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 10:00:51 -0400
Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >My question was: Is there a need for 2 netlink messages to indicate
> > >that a bonding configuration change was needed when the config came over
> > >netlink. I did not see the need for 2 netlink messages in this case and
> > >was asking for clarification from you.
> >
> > Imagine 2 applications. One is just monitoring netlink events ("ip
> > mon"), the second is setting up bond via netlink. Now, the second sends
> > a message to kernel, that is unicast to kernel. The first application
> > does not see that message. Therefore there is need to generate the event
> > message in kernel and send it back to userspace via multicast.
> > That message the first application will see. And that is exactly what
> > my patch is doing.
>
> Agreed. Thanks for having the discussion on this.
>
> Acked-by: Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>
Quagga uses socket filter to solve this problem.
The application filters out it's own route change events.
--
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