From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH RESUBMIT2 net-next 1/2] IPv6 routing, NLM_F_* flag support: warn if NEWROUTE lacks of both CREATE and REPLACE flags Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 02:06:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20111114.020617.136865443034405914.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1321254611.23935.15.camel@hakki> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: matti.vaittinen@nsn.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([198.137.202.13]:43167 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752897Ab1KNHGY (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Nov 2011 02:06:24 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1321254611.23935.15.camel@hakki> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: These changes still has problems. These warning messages are poorly formatted. Some of them don't even indicate that ipv6 is involved by printing out an appropriate subsystem prefix. And frankly, they are ugly, and not the kind of thing I want the networking code spitting out. Consolidate these messages into something that has good form and will indicate, consistently, where the trouble is occuring. And I still submit that perhaps these ugly messages are an indicate of how bad an idea these changes are in the first place. We've lived with the current behavior for 15 years or more, nobody cared. What changed? What can't you do with the current setup? And why can't you do it without requiring operations that work currently to change semantics?