From: Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 21:09:45 +0200 > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 21:06 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 08:59:12PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: >> [...] >> > Heh. I think I really want to solve - at least partially - >> > nla_parse() >> > to see that it can be done this way. It'd be nice to even transform >> > all >> > the callers (I generated half of these patches with spatch anyway) >> > to >> > have at least that. >> >> We can just have a modified version of nla_parse that deals with >> this. > > Yes, but we need to figure out a good way to have the offset. > > We also need to see if we want to *force* having the offset. In some > sense that'd be useful, in another it might be very complicated to fill > it in at all times, if for example errors come from lower layers like > drivers. It has to be optional, some kinds of errors don't have an exact context per-se. Also another way to look at this is that we're providing a lot of new power and expressability. So even if only one aspect of the new error reporting is used it's a positive step forward. So allow offset "0" meaning "unspecified".
