David Miller wrote: > From: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 06:59:06 +0200 > > >>RTM_DELROUTE + RTM_NEWROUTE seem to be safer, although you're correct >>that it might cause userspace to perform some action upon receiving >>the DELROUTE message since the update is non-atomic. So I really don't >>know, I'm in favour of having notifications for replacements, but I >>fear we might break something. > > > We can cry foul about a broken application if an application following > the API correctly would interpret the new messages correctly. > > I think it doesn't make sense to do a delete then a newroute for > the atomicity issues, and therefore the replace makes the most > sense as long as existing correct uses of the API would not > explode on this.
They shouldn't, worst case is that they ignore NLM_F_REPLACE and treat it as a completely new route, which is at least half way correct and not really worse than today. Milan, could you cook up another patch which uses NLM_F_REPLACE? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
