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 15:32:32 +0100 Message-ID: <20080126143232.GD2624@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> <20080126141010.GC2624@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 ([66.249.92.174]:57586 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751971AbYAZO2U (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:28:20 -0500 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id z38so672858ugc.16 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 06:28:18 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080126141010.GC2624@ami.dom.local> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 03:10:10PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote: ... > [...] 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. As a matter of fact, the moment of destruction doesn't even matter: assuming the replaced thing is destroyed in all 'common' cases, doing this at the end isn't probably wanted as well - and skipping this action makes an exception - what IMHO proves the concept is at least inconsistent. Jarek P.