Since you feel strongly about this - I will make the change and
we can always blame the RFC;->
I need to do some testing later tonight to make sure nothing goes
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 08:14, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Hi Jamal:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 07:53:30AM -0500, jamal wrote:
> > I may be influenced by some of the behaviors of rtnetlink users then.
> > Typically (I may need to go back and double check), they dont echo back.
> That's right. However, this isn't really an echo. It's a notification
> from the kernel to a particular multicast group. For example, in the
> case of a delete request, the multicast message will presumably contain
> full details about the state being deleted.
> This is something that may be of interest to the sending process.
> > > For netlink it is important to use a different socket for receiving
> > > multicast messages since otherwise you run the risk of losing unicast
> > > messages when it overruns.
> > This may be the reason actually now that i think of it. Its not the user
> > you are avoiding to echo back to, rather the overloading the user. What
> Well the message itself shouldn't overload the user since its size can
> be calculated before hand. If anything is going to overload the netlink
> socket it's going to be multicast messages caused by other processes.
> Really, if you're going to listen to multicast messages via netlink,
> you should do it in a socket where you don't expect to get unicast
> > if (n->nlmsg_flags&NLM_F_ECHO)
> > broadcast to all
> > else
> > just send to all sans the originator
> > sounds reasonable?
> Well since I don't think this is an echo request, no :)