On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 07:32:24AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 15:34:13 +0200 Guillaume Nault wrote: > > > +Make sure to pass the request info to genl_notify() to allow ``NLM_F_ECHO`` > > > +to take effect. > > > > Do you mean that netlink commands should properly handle NLM_F_ECHO, > > although they should also design their API so that users don't need it? > > Yes, ECHO should be supported but as an extra, not something that > is crucial to write a basic script without assuming full ownership > of the system... > > IOW support the logging use case you mentioned but don't do the NEWLINK > thing. > > Should I clarify or rephrase? The ECHO section needs to be read with > the one above it to get the full answer. Maybe we can make this more explicit. Something like: -Having to rely on ``NLM_F_ECHO`` is a hack, not a valid design. +Users shouldn't have to use ``NLM_F_ECHO`` to get a handle on the created +object. (or keep both sentences, I feel they fit well together). Then maybe explain in the next section why support for NLM_F_ECHO is desirable anyway: Make sure to pass the request info to genl_notify() to allow ``NLM_F_ECHO`` -to take effect. +to take effect. This is usefull for programs that need precise feedback from + the kernel (for example for logging purpose).
