[RFC 2/3]: The reason why this patch mark as RFC is that now only netfilter
use delete flags. If this should not be merged, please tell me. I will decode
delete flags in [3/3]("netlink: decode NETLINK_NETFILTER netlink message flags")
About RTM_DELACTION, it use NLM_F_ROOT flags:
Linux kernel: net/sched/act_api.c: tca_action_gd():
static int
tca_action_gd(struct net *net, struct nlattr *nla, struct nlmsghdr *n,
u32 portid, int event)
{
...
if (event == RTM_DELACTION && n->nlmsg_flags & NLM_F_ROOT) {
if (tb[1] != NULL)
return tca_action_flush(net, tb[1], n, portid);
else
return -EINVAL;
}
...
}
iproute2: tc/m_action.c: print_action()
int print_action(const struct sockaddr_nl *who,
struct nlmsghdr *n,
void *arg)
{
...
if (n->nlmsg_type == RTM_DELACTION) {
if (n->nlmsg_flags & NLM_F_ROOT) {
fprintf(fp, "Flushed table ");
tab_flush = 1;
} else {
fprintf(fp, "Deleted action ");
}
}
...
}
[RFC 3/3]: This patch I want the reviewer know what I do after refactor
decode_nlmsg_flags. No need to merge.
JingPiao Chen (3):
netlink: refactor decode_nlmsg_flags
netlink: decode netlink message delete flags
netlink: decode NETLINK_NETFILTER netlink message flags
NEWS | 2 +-
netlink.c | 229 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
netlink.h | 3 +
tests/netlink_crypto.c | 10 +-
tests/netlink_route.c | 7 +-
tests/netlink_xfrm.c | 10 +-
xlat/netlink_delete_flags.in | 1 +
7 files changed, 207 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 xlat/netlink_delete_flags.in
--
2.7.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Strace-devel mailing list
Strace-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/strace-devel
