* Julius Volz <juliusv@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-07-10 17:13
> So, just to be sure: when I'm not returning an object (like in
> IPVS_CMD_GET_INFO), I still use IPVS_CMD_GET_INFO as the command ID in
> the response? This is also how net/irda/irnetlink.c does it, but maybe
> I'm copying bad examples again.
>
> But whenever a response message is about objects, be it one or
> multiple entries, I use the IPVS_CMD_NEW_* response IDs.
Personally I would never use a GET id to send any data at all. My main
focus is on trying to make message protocols self documenting. If a
certain message type has multiple meanings depending on the direction
it will make it harder to understand and harder to debug from a protocol
standpoint.
The common netlink semantics are
CMD_OBJ_NEW - create or update objects as described in the message
content.
CMD_OBJ_SET - rarely used, update a static object which doesn't have
to be created or added. asme as OBJ_NEW otherwise.
CMD_OBJ_DEL - delete object described in the message
CMD_OBJ_GET - search for a object as described in the message and
send a CMD_OBJ_NEW as reply including the full object.
with NLM_F_DUMP: iterate over all objects and send a
CMD_OBJ_NEW for each object. This request often carries
no additional data.
It's pretty simple but covers almost every possible protocol for use
in configuration interfaces. In the case of IPVS_CMD_GET_INFO the
actual data being sent back can be regarded as a info object. Basically
netlink is mainly used as a very basic form of rpc.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
