On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 01:34:14PM -0600, Steve Wise wrote: > ... > > >>> + rd_prepare_msg(rd, RDMA_NLDEV_CMD_NEWLINK, &seq, > >>> + (NLM_F_REQUEST | NLM_F_ACK)); > >>> + mnl_attr_put_strz(rd->nlh, RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_DEV_NAME, name); > >>> + mnl_attr_put_strz(rd->nlh, RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_LINK_TYPE, type); > >>> + mnl_attr_put_strz(rd->nlh, RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_NDEV_NAME, dev); > >>> + ret = rd_send_msg(rd); > >>> + if (ret) > >>> + return ret; > >>> + > >>> + ret = rd_recv_msg(rd, link_add_parse_cb, rd, seq); > >>> + if (ret) > >>> + perror(NULL); > >> Why do you need rd_recv_msg()? I think that it is not needed, at least > >> for rename, I didn't need it. > >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2-next.git/tree/rdma/dev.c#n244 > > To get the response of if it was successfully added. It provides the > > errno value. > If I don't do the rd_recv_msg, then adding the same name twice fails > without any error notification. Ditto for deleting a non-existent > link. So the rd_recv_msg() allows getting the failure reason (and > detecting the failure). >
Shouldn't extack provide such information as part of NLM_F_ACK flag? just shooting into the air, will take more close look tomorrow. Thanks >
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
