From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 9816] New: cannot replace route Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:10:10 +0100 Message-ID: <20080126141010.GC2624@ami.dom.local> References: <20080125142603.a73fd7a2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <479A6CBD.4010908@gmail.com> <20080125192026.e667f396.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080126114036.GA2624@ami.dom.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andrew Morton , netdev@vger.kernel.org, bugme-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org, schwab@suse.de To: Joonwoo Park Return-path: Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.168]:31766 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753746AbYAZOGM (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:06:12 -0500 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id z38so671340ugc.16 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 06:06:11 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080126114036.GA2624@ami.dom.local> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 12:40:36PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 02:16:01PM +0900, Joonwoo Park wrote: > > 2008/1/26, Andrew Morton : > > > > > > But whatever. It used to work. People's scripts will break. Regression. > > > > > > > Also I thought that 'replace with itself' should be error as like Jarek. > > But it used to work and patch made a regression, it's my bad :( > > Actually, I don't think 'replace with itself' should be an error. I've > only meant that lack of this possibility shouldn't be necessarily seen > as error - there could be arguments for both sides. ...On the other hand, after some re-thinking, I actually think 'replace with itself' should be considered a bug. I wondered about the possible reason of this behaviour in a file system, and it seems replace just means things like overwrite, so old thing is always supposed to be destroyed (of course it's a matter of implementation or conditions in which moment this destruction takes place). So, 'replace with itself' is simply ambiguous: we can always delete the object first, to prepare the place for replacement, and find there is nothing to do after this - and it's probably not what somebody wanted. And, after re-reading this bugzilla report, I'm pretty sure the thing should be done with 'ip route change' (but I didn't check if 2.6.24 knows about this...). Jarek P.