On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 12:40:36PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 02:16:01PM +0900, Joonwoo Park wrote: > > 2008/1/26, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > But whatever. It used to work. People's scripts will break. > > > Regression. > > > > > > > Also I thought that 'replace with itself' should be error as like Jarek. > > But it used to work and patch made a regression, it's my bad :( > > Actually, I don't think 'replace with itself' should be an error. I've > only meant that lack of this possibility shouldn't be necessarily seen > as error - there could be arguments for both sides.
...On the other hand, after some re-thinking, I actually think 'replace with itself' should be considered a bug. I wondered about the possible reason of this behaviour in a file system, and it seems replace just means things like overwrite, so old thing is always supposed to be destroyed (of course it's a matter of implementation or conditions in which moment this destruction takes place). So, 'replace with itself' is simply ambiguous: we can always delete the object first, to prepare the place for replacement, and find there is nothing to do after this - and it's probably not what somebody wanted. And, after re-reading this bugzilla report, I'm pretty sure the thing should be done with 'ip route change' (but I didn't check if 2.6.24 knows about this...). Jarek P. -- 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
