[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YzO943B4Id2jLZkI@Laptop-X1>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2022 11:22:11 +0800
From: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>,
Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>,
Florent Fourcot <florent.fourcot@...irst.fr>,
Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 net-next] rtnetlink: Honour NLM_F_ECHO flag in
rtnl_{new, set, del}link
Hi Jakub,
On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 12:13:03PM +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> @@ -3009,6 +3012,11 @@ static int do_setlink(const struct sk_buff *skb,
> }
> }
>
> + nskb = rtmsg_ifinfo_build_skb(RTM_NEWLINK, dev, 0, 0, GFP_KERNEL, NULL,
> + 0, pid, nlh->nlmsg_seq);
> + if (nskb)
> + rtnl_notify(nskb, dev_net(dev), pid, RTNLGRP_LINK, nlh, GFP_KERNEL);
BTW, in do_setlink() I planed to use RTM_SETLINK. But I found iproute2 use
RTM_NEWLINK to set links. And I saw an old doc[1] said
"""
- RTM_SETLINK does not follow the usual rtnetlink conventions and ignores
all netlink flags
The RTM_NEWLINK message type is a superset of RTM_SETLINK, it allows
to change both driver specific and generic attributes of the device.
"""
So I just use RTM_NEWLINK for the notification. Do you think if we should
use RTM_SETLINK?
[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/236919/
Thanks
Hangbin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists