Re: [PATCH net] ipv4: include NLM_F_APPEND flag in append route notifications

[roopa <roopa@cumulusnetworks.com>]

On 6/17/15, 8:35 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>
>> @@ -1189,8 +1190,9 @@ int fib_table_insert(struct fib_table *tb, struct
>> fib_config *cfg)
>>                          fib_release_info(fi_drop);
>>                          if (state & FA_S_ACCESSED)
>> rt_cache_flush(cfg->fc_nlinfo.nl_net);
>> +                       nlflags |= NLM_F_REPLACE;
>>                          rtmsg_fib(RTM_NEWROUTE, htonl(key), new_fa, 
>> plen,
>> -                               tb->tb_id, &cfg->fc_nlinfo, 
>> NLM_F_REPLACE);
>> +                               tb->tb_id, &cfg->fc_nlinfo, nlflags);
>>
>>                          goto succeeded;
>>
>
> Why even bother modifying this part?  Is this actually needed at all, 
> are there some other flags you plan to drop into nlflags as well that 
> would be passed as a part of this message?

agreed, for the same reason my initial patch did not touch this part. 
Nope, no other flags. I was trying to meet scotts concerns.
>
>> @@ -1201,7 +1203,9 @@ int fib_table_insert(struct fib_table *tb, struct
>> fib_config *cfg)
>>                  if (fa_match)
>>                          goto out;
>>
>> -               if (!(cfg->fc_nlflags & NLM_F_APPEND))
>> +               if (cfg->fc_nlflags & NLM_F_APPEND)
>> +                       nlflags |= NLM_F_APPEND;
>> +               else
>>                          fa = fa_first;
>>          }
>>          err = -ENOENT;
>
> I'm not sure I see the point of using the |=.   Why not just use a = 
> and save yourself an instruction or two since you don't really need 
> the OR operator in this case.
>
ack,

I would prefer keeping my initial patch which was pretty non-intrusive.

thanks,
Roopa