On 9 June 2014 10:00, Felix Fietkau <nbd at openwrt.org> wrote: > 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. > What kind of benefit we have having binary format between crda <-> wireless-regd (nl-based or current regulatory.bin)? This is additional code/work to do - why we need that? BR Janusz
