[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7291b240853fbf1fc6dbdc30fe4f6743@codeaurora.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 22:04:13 -0600
From: subashab@...eaurora.org
To: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Cc: Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>,
Sean Tranchetti <stranche@...eaurora.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Daniele Palmas <dnlplm@...il.com>,
Aleksander Morgado <aleksander@...ksander.es>,
Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: qualcomm: rmnet: Allow partial updates of IFLA_FLAGS
> I recently posted a patch to iproute2 extending the rmnet link handling
> to handle IFLA_RMNET_FLAGS, in the discussion that followed this
> subject
> came up. So nothing is broken, it's just that the current logic doesn't
> make sense and I wanted to attempt to fix it before we start to use it
> commonly distributed userspace software (iproute2, libqmi etc)
With this patch, passing IFLA_RMNET_FLAGS in newlink vs changelink will
have
different behavior. Is that inline with your expectations.
I checked VLAN and it seems to be using the same behavior for both the
operations.
While the patch itself is fine, I don't think its right to have
different
behavior for the operations.
> Okay, please let me know what hoops you want me to jump through. I just
> want the subject concluded so that I can respin my iproute2 patch
> according to what we decide here.
My suggestion is to have the subject prefix as [PATCH net-next] since
this
is an enhancement rather than fixing something which is broken.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists