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
