[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170607163758.GA25313@obsidianresearch.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 10:37:58 -0600
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc: Kaike Wan <kaike.wan@...el.com>, John Fleck <john.fleck@...el.com>,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
RDMA mailing list <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Netlink messages without NLM_F_REQUEST flag
On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 07:19:01PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> It makes me wonder if it is expected behavior for
> ibnl_rcv_reply_skb() to handle !NLM_F_REQUEST messages and do we
> really need it? What are the scenarios? In my use case, which is
> for sure different from yours, I'm always setting NLM_F_REQUEST
> while communicating with kernel.
If I recall the user space SA code issues REQUESTS from the kernel to
userspace, so userspace returns with the response format. This is
abnormal for netlink hence the special function.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists