[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150115000125.GG2105@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 00:01:25 +0000
From: "tgraf@...g.ch" <tgraf@...g.ch>
To: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc: "Arad, Ronen" <ronen.arad@...el.com>,
"roopa@...ulusnetworks.com" <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"shemminger@...tta.com" <shemminger@...tta.com>,
"vyasevic@...hat.com" <vyasevic@...hat.com>,
"jhs@...atatu.com" <jhs@...atatu.com>,
"sfeldma@...il.com" <sfeldma@...il.com>,
"jiri@...nulli.us" <jiri@...nulli.us>,
"wkok@...ulusnetworks.com" <wkok@...ulusnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: fix setlink/dellink notifications
On 01/14/15 at 03:36pm, John Fastabend wrote:
> On 01/14/2015 03:22 PM, Arad, Ronen wrote:
> >What is the purpose of the above two lines (not changed by the patch)?
> >They seem to copy over the flags with the successfully applied cases
> >(MASTER and/or SELF) flags cleared back into the incoming netlink message.
> >I could not figure any place where the modified flags attribute is used
>
> This allows userspace to learn which operation failed when it is an
> operation to set both the software bridge via BRIDGE_FLAGS_MASTER and
> the the hardware via BRIDGE_FLAGS_SELF. When we get the error back
> software looks at the flags to figure out how to recover/retry/etc.
The intent of including the original message in the error Netlink
message was originally to track the request that lead to the error ;-)
--
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