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. Jason
