On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 08:00:37PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 10:47:50AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 07:43:44PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Jason Gunthorpe > > > <jgunthorpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 07:19:01PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > >> It makes me wonder if it is expected behavior for > > > >> ibnl_rcv_reply_skb() to handle !NLM_F_REQUEST messages and do we > > > >> really need it? What are the scenarios? In my use case, which is > > > >> for sure different from yours, I'm always setting NLM_F_REQUEST > > > >> while communicating with kernel. > > > > > > > > If I recall the user space SA code issues REQUESTS from the kernel to > > > > userspace, so userspace returns with the response format. This is > > > > abnormal for netlink hence the special function. > > > > > > In netlink semantics, kernel side is supposed to send netlink > > > notification message and userspace is supposed to send REQUEST. > > > > That pattern is for async communications, the SA stuff needs a sync > > protocol, unfortunately. > > There is special flag NLM_F_ACK for it and userspace will set > NLM_F_REQUEST | NLM_F_ACK once synchronization is needed. AFAIK, that is different, that is acking and retriggering a single shot notification, not completing a kernel initiated handshake. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
