On Fri, 2007-29-06 at 13:28 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 07:17 -0400, jamal wrote: > > Because of this I'd really prefer if we could hold off on adding groups, > but I can handle both cases fine by just reserving a family and group ID > for the current users. > sure - if you rush you can make it into Daves 2.6.23; then both can conform at the same time. > I think I'd prefer if we just returned an error. See, we aren't going to > run out of groups in the foreseeable future, and if we ever have users > that generate *a lot* of groups we can still add the sharing code etc. > For now it seems just bloat and a code path we won't ever touch so prone > to errors in it. > Ok, you are doing the coding and i dont have strong opinions on either; so go for it. > Ok :) Though I'm not sure I understood the suggestion of sending just > one TLV, what should I send? I meant when user space asks the controller "please tell me details about family X" you will always pass an id and name. Never just one. So why not just send that in a struct which has a id/name (as you already have defined in your current patch). cheers, jamal - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
