On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:03:11AM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
> > The kernel netlink code is not as picky as ours, BTW: generally it
> > only validates minimum lengths. ??Maybe we should only do that in
> > userspace too; it would simplify a few things. ??Any thoughts on that?
>
> Does anyone ever try to send extended structures that are the same at
> the beginning but have extra information at the end? It would be a
> somewhat weird form of compatibility code but it would depend on only
> checking the min length.
The libnl manual page here alleges that extensions are done this way
"frequently":
http://www.infradead.org/~tgr/libnl/doc/core.html
I guess I should go through and drop most uses of maxlen.
> Otherwise, I don't have particularly strong feelings. Would it
> actually simplify things all that much though?
I was thinking that we could drop maxlen entirely, but in fact it's
pretty useful for string data, so no, it wouldn't really simplify
anything. Never mind.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
