On Thu, Jul 10, 2008, Thomas Graf wrote: > 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. Makes sense so far, but: > The common netlink semantics are > > CMD_OBJ_NEW - create or update objects as described in the message > content. 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. > CMD_OBJ_SET - rarely used, update a static object which doesn't have > to be created or added. asme as OBJ_NEW otherwise. Like in the case of sending the GET_INFO or GET_TIMEOUT replies. > 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. Ok, that makes sense too and is pretty much what I have. Julius -- 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 http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
