On 17-04-17 09:10 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: [..]
We can not assume user programs properly cleared the paddings anyway. Using them for 'new features' is risky, since it might break programs. So the safe way is using new attributes really.
Since we agreed to have longer discussions on uapis when we met I'd like to digress: Can we talk about what it means to define pads in data structures and then never using them? As an example, no-one is setting these fields anywhere on any app i know of. Would a union not be good enough for new name vs old name? old binaries should continue to work. Breakage with any app during compile should be fixable within the breaking app (since whoever it is would have source). Maybe by breaking some weird app we can experiment on finding out. My contention is that it is not nice to continue to define uapi pads and then say they cant be used ever. cheers, jamal
