Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 05:48:09PM CET, dsah...@gmail.com wrote:
>On 1/9/18 7:07 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/rtnetlink.h b/include/uapi/linux/rtnetlink.h
>> index 9c026d9..038cde7 100644
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/rtnetlink.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/rtnetlink.h
>> @@ -150,6 +150,12 @@ enum {
>> RTM_NEWCACHEREPORT = 96,
>> #define RTM_NEWCACHEREPORT RTM_NEWCACHEREPORT
>>
>> + RTM_NEWBLOCK = 100,
>> +#define RTM_NEWBLOCK RTM_NEWBLOCK
>> + RTM_DELBLOCK,
>> +#define RTM_DELBLOCK RTM_DELBLOCK
>> + RTM_GETBLOCK,
>> +#define RTM_GETBLOCK RTM_GETBLOCK
>> __RTM_MAX,
>> #define RTM_MAX (((__RTM_MAX + 3) & ~3) - 1)
>> };
>
>Seems like this is creating an inconsistency. RTM_GETBLOCK is used to
>dump the set of shared blocks, but RTM_NEWBLOCK / RTM_DELBLOCK are not
>used to create / delete one.
Why is it a problem? RTM_NEWBLOCK is used as a reply for RTM_GETBLOCK.
I plan to have block notifications as a follow-up, there the RTM_GETBLOCK
and RTM_DELBLOCK will be used. The fact the user cannot create and
delete block explicitly is no problem in my opinion. The block creation
and deletion is done according to usage of qdiscs.
