On 2014-05-21 18:03, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 11:48 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> > I think we should, but if we can't then at least can we cut to an >> > extensible format? > > I don't see any way to extend the format right now. > > There's a wrinkle with making it more extensible too though - if we do > that then we must be extremely careful that future older crda versions > (i.e. the next version that we're about to write) will not parse a newer > extended file more permissively, so our extensions are limited anyway. > > Looks like the format update really is needed, which probably means we > should change the scripts to generate two databases and change the > filename, or so? How about making the format properly extensible by reusing what we're already doing to keep the kernel ABI stable? For example, we could store the database in a netlink-like attribute format, with some changes to make it fixed endian. I'm already doing just that for a few things in OpenWrt, so I have working C code for writing and parsing such a format. Another nice feature would be to indicate in the attributes if crda is required to understand them, or if it can just continue with a warning. If done right, I think we can probably make this the last time we change the format version. - Felix
