Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:37:10AM CET, j...@resnulli.us wrote:
>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
I mean RTM_NEWBLOCK and RTM_DELBLOCK of couse.
>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.
