From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cong Wang Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] net sched qdisc: pass netlink message flags in event notification Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 12:23:42 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1509054014-23254-1-git-send-email-mrv@mojatatu.com> <85mv4atyk6.fsf@mojatatu.com> <85o9ooo6g0.fsf@mojatatu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: David Miller , Linux Kernel Network Developers , Jamal Hadi Salim , Jiri Pirko To: Roman Mashak Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f181.google.com ([209.85.192.181]:44298 "EHLO mail-pf0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932708AbdJ3TYD (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:24:03 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-f181.google.com with SMTP id x7so11799498pfa.1 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 12:24:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <85o9ooo6g0.fsf@mojatatu.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Roman Mashak wrote: > Cong Wang writes: > >> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Roman Mashak wrote: >>> Cong Wang 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? Note, RTM_NEWQDISC+RTM_DELQDISC are put in a same message not two.