On Tue, 2006-15-08 at 10:56 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Agreed. The pid field in the netlink header should be treated as an
> opaque value. Any attempt to interpret it as the process ID is doomed
> to failure.
Not necessarily as a processid ("PID" is a really bad noun in that
sense); but rather as something meaningful of interpretation in regards
to the real origin of the executed change.
The concept of "whodunnit" is invaluable.
And a processid tends to be useful when nothing else is there to
identify the originator. Just saying "it is the kernel" (PID=0) when the
kernel just acted as a proxy of some user space app, is not useful all
the times, IMO.
[Routes, but not other functional blocks in rtnetlink, actually have a
field (called protocol) that says who added them]. Thats all the quagga
and other folks were looking for in cases where it was ambigous.
cheers,
jamal
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
