|
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Option c) looks reasonable to me and also seems easy to handle in
>> general. Is this the way to go? Or do we want the interface to look
>> completely different this time?
>
> b) or c) both look fine.
A couple of other Netlink questions came up while reading some code:
1) There are many examples of the following two cases in the kernel:
nla_nest_start(skb, SOME_ATTR_TYPE | NLA_F_NESTED);
nla_nest_start(skb, SOME_ATTR_TYPE);
Why don't all cases have NLA_F_NESTED? Then again, this bit is never
ever read out again (at least not in the kernel), so I guess people
are just using their implicit knowledge that a specific attribute type
is always nested and never check the bit?
Btw., couldn't we change nla_nest_start() to always add NLA_F_NESTED
to the type?
2) To send an array of attributes of the same type, you just add them
serially? I was just confused at first that nla_parse() will save only
one attribute of each type (the last one) in the destination array, so
when dealing with arrays, it doesn't help. So I just iterate over the
array with nla_for_each_attr() and parse each element manually, right?
Thanks for your time!
Julius
--
Google Switzerland GmbH
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|
