Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 02:30:17PM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote: >On 17-04-28 03:02 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 03:22:53AM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote: > >[..] >> > 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. >> > >I didnt understand fully Jiri. Are you suggesting a new type called >NLA_FLAGS which is re-usable elsewhere?
Exactly. That's what I'm saying.
