Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:07:08PM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote: >On 17-04-26 09:56 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:14:38PM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote: >> > On 17-04-26 08:08 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: > >[..] >
[...] > >> > Again: You are looking at this from a manageability point of view which >> > is useful but not the only input into a design. If i can squeeze more >> > data without killing usability - I am all for it. It just doesnt >> > compute that it is ok to use a flag per attribute because it looks >> > beautiful. >> >> Hmm. Now that I'm thinking about it, why don't we have NLA_FLAGS with >> couple of helpers around it? It will be obvious what the attr is, all >> kernel code would use the same helpers. Would be nice. >> > >I think to have flags at that level is useful but it >is a different hierarchy level. I am not sure the >"actions dump large messages" is a fit for that level. Jamal, the idea is to have exactly what you want to have. Only does not use NLA_U32 attr for that but a special attr NLA_FLAGS which would have well defined semantics and set of helpers to work with and enforce it. Then, this could be easily reused in other subsystem that uses netlink
