[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZDcltmGmTr6XOlsN@debian>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 23:42:14 +0200
From: Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com>
To: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
Cc: Martin Willi <martin@...ongswan.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] rtnetlink: Restore RTM_NEW/DELLINK notification
behavior
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 09:16:20PM +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 11:21:33AM +0200, Martin Willi wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > > > Fixes: f3a63cce1b4f ("rtnetlink: Honour NLM_F_ECHO flag in rtnl_delete_link")
> > > > Fixes: d88e136cab37 ("rtnetlink: Honour NLM_F_ECHO flag in rtnl_newlink_create")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Martin Willi <martin@...ongswan.org>
> > >
> > > Not sure if the Fixes tag should be
> > > 1d997f101307 ("rtnetlink: pass netlink message header and portid to rtnl_configure_link()")
> >
> > While this one adds the infrastructure, the discussed issue manifests
>
> Yes
>
> > only with the two commits above. Anyway, I'm fine with either, let me
> > know if I shall change it.
>
> In my understanding the above 2 commits only pass netlink header to
> rtnl_configure_link. The question code in 1d997f101307 didn't check if
> NLM_F_ECHO is honoured, as your commit pointed.
That's right, but personally I find it clearer to cite the commits that
brought the actual behaviour change.
> Thanks
> Hangbin
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists