On 1/7/2025 3:12 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2025-01-07 at 16:03 +0530, Sarika Sharma wrote: >> Actually, there is ongoing work to extend sinfo for link-level details. >> While working on this, I noticed a documentation mismatch and decided to >> correct the existing documentation first, as it's good to have aligned >> structure and documentation. > > Why do you think it's good? I don't even agree with that. The code > should be laid out to minimize holes, but the docs can be laid out to > group functionally related fields. Without any documented guidance to that effect I had suggested this during internal review to help minimize the size of the diffs where members are being refactored out of sinfo into a new per-link struct. But we can drop this since I think we'll be renaming some of the refactored members and hence the diff will be big anyway. /jeff
