Re: [PATCH 2/2] IPVS: Add genetlink interface implementation

To: "Thomas Graf" <tgraf@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] IPVS: Add genetlink interface implementation
Cc: "Patrick McHardy" <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, lvs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, vbusam@xxxxxxxxxx, horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: "Julius Volz" <juliusv@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:03:40 +0200
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008, Thomas Graf wrote:
> * Julius Volz <juliusv@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-07-11 01:16
>> If a single operation just means create _or_ update (NLM_F_EXCL, etc.
>> flags don't work with genetlink), then ipvsadm would have to query for
>> an entry first, which is racy and ugly. So I'd like to keep ADD/EDIT
>> in separate commands. But then I need a different response id (or just
>> use the ADD id?) for a GET.
> That's fine, both methods a) adding your own NLM_F_ flags to genetlink
> and b) using separate commands would be straight forward and easy to
> understand.


> The key point is that a GET or DUMP request should be answered with
> one or more NEW requests. An ADD, SET, or DEL request should be simply
> ACKed or aborted with an error message. Optionally it can trigger a
> notification message which should be either a NEW or DEL request.

Makes sense.

> Using SET to explicitely update an object is fine as well. The reason we
> are not using it in the context of notifications is that listeners can
> appear at any time so the listener may not have been around at the time
> the object was created.

Hm, I like that option most. So if you think it's ok, I will use NEW =
add and SET = edit.


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>