On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 12:22:23PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > 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". Instead, we can just not send the offset attribute to userspace if it's not specified. So missing attribute means "unspecified". I'm always a bit worried this "0 means something" semantics :)
