Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk

On Mon, 07 Aug 2017 13:26:03 -0700 (PDT) David Miller wrote: > From: Stephen Hemminger > Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 12:12:35 -0700 > > > Dave, I asked for test cases, and received none. > > You don't need a test case to type make and make sure the

Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk

From: Stephen Hemminger Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 12:12:35 -0700 > Dave, I asked for test cases, and received none. You don't need a test case to type make and make sure the build succeeds.

Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk

On Mon, 07 Aug 2017 11:45:17 -0700 (PDT) David Miller wrote: > From: David Ahern > Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 12:09:31 -0600 > > > On 8/7/17 12:06 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > >>> Does not work. Seems like you pushed the RFC commit which was known to >

Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk

From: David Ahern Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 12:09:31 -0600 > On 8/7/17 12:06 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >>> Does not work. Seems like you pushed the RFC commit which was known to >>> be incomplete. >> >> Patches welcome. > > What exists does not even compile. Patches will be

Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk

On 8/7/17 12:06 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >> Does not work. Seems like you pushed the RFC commit which was known to >> be incomplete. > > Patches welcome. What exists does not even compile. Patches will be sent once you fix that.

Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk

On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 10:48:23 -0600 David Ahern wrote: > On 8/4/17 10:47 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > I will put in the libmnl version. If it doesn't work because no one sent > > me test cases, then fine. send a patch for that. > > This commit: > > commit

Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk

On 8/4/17 10:47 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > I will put in the libmnl version. If it doesn't work because no one sent > me test cases, then fine. send a patch for that. This commit: commit b6432e68ac2f1f6b4ea50aa0d6d47e72c445c71c Author: Stephen Hemminger Date:

Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk

On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 13:31:48 +0200 Simon Horman wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 02:26:58PM -0600, David Ahern wrote: > > On 5/18/17 10:24 PM, David Ahern wrote: > > > On 5/18/17 3:02 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > >> So effectively this means libmnl has to be used

Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 02:26:58PM -0600, David Ahern wrote: > On 5/18/17 10:24 PM, David Ahern wrote: > > On 5/18/17 3:02 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > >> So effectively this means libmnl has to be used for new stuff, noone > >> has time to do the work to convert the existing tooling over (which >

Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk

On 5/18/17 10:24 PM, David Ahern wrote: > On 5/18/17 3:02 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: >> So effectively this means libmnl has to be used for new stuff, noone >> has time to do the work to convert the existing tooling over (which >> by itself might be a challenge in testing everything to make sure

Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk

On 5/18/17 3:02 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > So effectively this means libmnl has to be used for new stuff, noone > has time to do the work to convert the existing tooling over (which > by itself might be a challenge in testing everything to make sure > there are no regressions) given there's not

Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk

On Thu, 18 May 2017 12:02:07 +0200 Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 05/16/2017 06:36 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Sat, 13 May 2017 19:29:57 -0600 > > David Ahern wrote: > > > >> On 5/4/17 2:43 PM, Phil Sutter wrote: > >>> So in summary, given that

Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk

On 05/16/2017 06:36 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: On Sat, 13 May 2017 19:29:57 -0600 David Ahern wrote: On 5/4/17 2:43 PM, Phil Sutter wrote: So in summary, given that very little change happens to iproute2's internal libnetlink, I don't see much urge to make it use libmnl

Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk

On Sat, 13 May 2017 19:29:57 -0600 David Ahern wrote: > On 5/4/17 2:43 PM, Phil Sutter wrote: > > So in summary, given that very little change happens to iproute2's > > internal libnetlink, I don't see much urge to make it use libmnl as > > backend. In my opinion it just adds

Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk

On 5/4/17 2:43 PM, Phil Sutter wrote: > So in summary, given that very little change happens to iproute2's > internal libnetlink, I don't see much urge to make it use libmnl as > backend. In my opinion it just adds another potential source of errors. > > Eventually this should be a maintainer

Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk

Thu, May 04, 2017 at 07:55:56PM CEST, l...@kernel.org wrote: >On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 09:45:58AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >> On Thu, 4 May 2017 17:37:38 +0300 >> Leon Romanovsky wrote: >> >> > On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 11:36:36AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: >> > > On

Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk

Hi, On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 09:43:56AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Thu, 04 May 2017 10:41:03 -0400 (EDT) > David Miller wrote: > > > From: David Ahern > > Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 08:27:35 -0600 > > > > > On 5/4/17 3:36 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:

Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk

On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 09:45:58AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Thu, 4 May 2017 17:37:38 +0300 > Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 11:36:36AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > > On 05/04/2017 01:56 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > > Add support for

Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk

On Thu, 4 May 2017 17:37:38 +0300 Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 11:36:36AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > On 05/04/2017 01:56 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > Add support for extended ack error reporting via libmnl. This > > > is a better alternative to

Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk

On Thu, 04 May 2017 10:41:03 -0400 (EDT) David Miller wrote: > From: David Ahern > Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 08:27:35 -0600 > > > On 5/4/17 3:36 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > >> What is the clear benefit/rationale of outsourcing this to > >> libmnl? I

Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk

On Thu, 04 May 2017 11:36:36 +0200 Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 05/04/2017 01:56 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > Add support for extended ack error reporting via libmnl. This > > is a better alternative to use existing library and not copy/paste > > code from the kernel.

Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk

On 17-05-04 10:41 AM, David Miller wrote: From: David Ahern Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 08:27:35 -0600 On 5/4/17 3:36 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: What is the clear benefit/rationale of outsourcing this to libmnl? I always was the impression we should strive for as little

Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk

From: David Ahern Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 08:27:35 -0600 > On 5/4/17 3:36 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: >> What is the clear benefit/rationale of outsourcing this to >> libmnl? I always was the impression we should strive for as little >> dependencies as possible? > > +1 Agreed,

Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk

On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 11:36:36AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 05/04/2017 01:56 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > Add support for extended ack error reporting via libmnl. This > > is a better alternative to use existing library and not copy/paste > > code from the kernel. Also make arguments

Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk

On 5/4/17 3:36 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > What is the clear benefit/rationale of outsourcing this to > libmnl? I always was the impression we should strive for as little > dependencies as possible? +1

Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk

On 05/04/2017 01:56 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: Add support for extended ack error reporting via libmnl. This is a better alternative to use existing library and not copy/paste code from the kernel. Also make arguments const where possible. Add a new function rtnl_talk_extack that takes a

[RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk

Add support for extended ack error reporting via libmnl. This is a better alternative to use existing library and not copy/paste code from the kernel. Also make arguments const where possible. Add a new function rtnl_talk_extack that takes a callback as an input arg. If a netlink response