From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Roman Mashak <mrv@mojatatu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] net sched qdisc: pass netlink message flags in event notification
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2017 18:44:48 -0400
Message-ID: <85h8ucgv1b.fsf@mojatatu.com>
References: <1509054014-23254-1-git-send-email-mrv@mojatatu.com>
        <CAM_iQpWC=JJDBnxPTmkSjqhBGqQakoWbTuBxnLSETHo7+mQvcA@mail.gmail.com>
        <85mv4atyk6.fsf@mojatatu.com>
        <CAM_iQpXm8CevNhWQV-MAP1FmN1aTy4m1tknviMphk-mR=t1=7Q@mail.gmail.com>
        <85o9ooo6g0.fsf@mojatatu.com>
        <CAM_iQpXh0sD9uFYmxkc70Bo_ABxNOh4REU3suJUnpP-rDLmdfQ@mail.gmail.com>
        <85fua0nxnu.fsf@mojatatu.com>
        <CAM_iQpUvO3XPOsMNV13LZ-ZKzQ1ya9a+ONVv_UpcT1xT8N2JFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-io0-f169.google.com ([209.85.223.169]:48302 "EHLO
        mail-io0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S934438AbdKBWov (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 2 Nov 2017 18:44:51 -0400
Received: by mail-io0-f169.google.com with SMTP id d66so2455945ioe.5
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 02 Nov 2017 15:44:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAM_iQpUvO3XPOsMNV13LZ-ZKzQ1ya9a+ONVv_UpcT1xT8N2JFQ@mail.gmail.com>
        (Cong Wang's message of "Tue, 31 Oct 2017 17:55:00 -0700")
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Roman Mashak <mrv@mojatatu.com> wrote:
>> Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Roman Mashak <mrv@mojatatu.com> wrote:
>>>> Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Roman Mashak <mrv@mojatatu.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm, I thought you use RTM_NEWQDISC+RTM_DELQDISC to
>>>>> determine it is replacement, no?
>>>>
>>>> Create is RTM_NEWQDISC and NLM_F_EXCL|NLM_F_CREATE, replacement is
>>>> RTM_NEWQDISC and NLM_F_REPLACE in netlink flags.
>>>
>>> Is there any reason we can't use RTM_NEWQDISC+RTM_DELQDISC
>>> rather than NLM_F_REPLACE to determine it is replacement?
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure this would be valid semantics for replace operation, look at
>> the rfc3549:
>>
>> Additional flag bits for NEW requests
>>           NLM_F_REPLACE   Replace existing matching config object with
>>                           this request.
>>
>
> I am not saying NLM_F_REPLACE is not correct, I am saying the
> RTM_NEWQDISC+RTM_DELQDISC in a same message probably
> exists for a reason.
>
>
>>> Note, RTM_NEWQDISC+RTM_DELQDISC are put in a same
>>> message not two.
>>
>> Hmm, could you clarify how do you expect to put two event IDs in nlmsg_type?
>
> Looking at qdisc_notify(), it is essentially two skb_put() on a same
> skb, right? So two nlmsghdr in one skb? Or I read it wrong?

So there will be two netlink messages in a single skb, and the user
receives two events. But apparently this only happens when a new
_egress_ qdisc is being added and the default egress qdisc is deleted.