Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 9816] New: cannot replace route

From: Jarek Poplawski <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:10:10 +0100

On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 12:40:36PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 02:16:01PM +0900, Joonwoo Park wrote:
> > 2008/1/26, Andrew Morton <[email-masked]>:
> > >
> > > But whatever.   It used to work.  People's scripts will break.  Regression.
> > >
> > 
> > Also I thought that 'replace with itself' should be error as like Jarek.
> > But it used to work and patch made a regression, it's my bad :(
> 
> Actually, I don't think 'replace with itself' should be an error. I've
> only meant that lack of this possibility shouldn't be necessarily seen
> as error - there could be arguments for both sides.

...On the other hand, after some re-thinking, I actually think 'replace
with itself' should be considered a bug. I wondered about the possible
reason of this behaviour in a file system, and it seems replace just
means things like overwrite, so old thing is always supposed to be
destroyed (of course it's a matter of implementation or conditions in
which moment this destruction takes place).

So, 'replace with itself' is simply ambiguous: we can always delete the
object first, to prepare the place for replacement, and find there is
nothing to do after this - and it's probably not what somebody wanted.
And, after re-reading this bugzilla report, I'm pretty sure the thing
should be done with 'ip route change' (but I didn't check if 2.6.24
knows about this...).

Jarek P.