On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > 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.
Interesting, I don't think I've ever seen something that does this in practice. >> 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. Yeah, I think it's useful in general but it sounds like we shouldn't be using it for structures. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
