On Thu, 5 Mar 2026 08:56:42 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote: > Wed, Mar 04, 2026 at 07:15:22PM +0100, [email protected] wrote: > >On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 11:34:13 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote: > >> On a second thought, if we merge multiple objects into one dump, how > >> does this extend? I mean, the userspace has to check there are no extra > >> attributes, as they may be used as a handle to another new object > >> introduced in the future... Idk, it's a bit odd. > > > >That's true, the user space must be able to interpret the object > >identifier. So if we extend the command to add more identifiers > >we will have to add the bitmask to the dump request, and have > >the user space tell the kernel which objects it can recognize. > >I was just saying that we don't have to add such attribute now, > >maybe leave a comment in a strategic place for our future selves? > > Or, alternatively, we can have per-object dumps as we have for all > objects and command right now and leave things simple and > straightforward? I mean, I don't really see a benefit of a single dump > for more objects :/
What do you mean by straightforward, exactly? User will most likely want to see all resources of a device in a single dump / command. The objects themselves are identical, they only differ by the handle, and yet we'd have two separate commands to access them. It's as if we had separate GETLINK commands in rtnetlink for devices on the PCIe bus vs connected via USB.
