On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Jason Gunthorpe <jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 07:19:01PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: >> It makes me wonder if it is expected behavior for >> ibnl_rcv_reply_skb() to handle !NLM_F_REQUEST messages and do we >> really need it? What are the scenarios? In my use case, which is >> for sure different from yours, I'm always setting NLM_F_REQUEST >> while communicating with kernel. > > If I recall the user space SA code issues REQUESTS from the kernel to > userspace, so userspace returns with the response format. This is > abnormal for netlink hence the special function.
In netlink semantics, kernel side is supposed to send netlink notification message and userspace is supposed to send REQUEST. > > Jason
