Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 03:22:53AM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote: >On 17-04-27 02:30 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> 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: > >> > 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 >> > >Maybe I am misunderstanding: >Recall, this is what it looks like with this patchset: ><nlh><subsytem-header>[TCA_ROOT_XXXX] > >TCA_ROOT_XXX is very subsystem specific. classifiers, qdiscs and many >subsystems defined their own semantics for that TLV level. This specific >"dump max" is very very specific to actions. They were crippled by the >fact you could only send 32 at a time - this allows more to be sent. > >I thought initially you meant: ><nlh>[NLA_XXX]<subsytem-header>[TCA_ROOT_XXXX] > >I think at the NLA_XXX you could fit netlink wide TLVs - but if i said >"do a large dump" it is of no use to any other subsystem.
Okay, I'm sorry, I had couple of beers yesterday so that might be the cause why your msg makes me totally confused :O All I suggest is to replace NLA_U32 flags you want that does not have any semantics with NLA_FLAGS flags, which eventually will carry the exact same u32, but with predefined semantics, helpers, everything.
