Re: [PATCH 00/26] IPVS: Add first IPv6 support to IPVS.

To: "Patrick McHardy" <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/26] IPVS: Add first IPv6 support to IPVS.
Cc: "Simon Horman" <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Vince Busam" <vbusam@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Ben Greear" <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, lvs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: "Julius Volz" <juliusv@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 01:19:14 +0200
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Option c) looks reasonable to me and also seems easy to handle in
>> general. Is this the way to go? Or do we want the interface to look
>> completely different this time?
> b) or c) both look fine.

A couple of other Netlink questions came up while reading some code:

1) There are many examples of the following two cases in the kernel:

nla_nest_start(skb, SOME_ATTR_TYPE | NLA_F_NESTED);
nla_nest_start(skb, SOME_ATTR_TYPE);

Why don't all cases have NLA_F_NESTED? Then again, this bit is never
ever read out again (at least not in the kernel), so I guess people
are just using their implicit knowledge that a specific attribute type
is always nested and never check the bit?

Btw., couldn't we change nla_nest_start() to always add NLA_F_NESTED
to the type?

2) To send an array of attributes of the same type, you just add them
serially? I was just confused at first that nla_parse() will save only
one attribute of each type (the last one) in the destination array, so
when dealing with arrays, it doesn't help. So I just iterate over the
array with nla_for_each_attr() and parse each element manually, right?

Thanks for your time!


Google Switzerland GmbH
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>