On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 21:03:08 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2020-09-30 at 12:01 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 20:36:24 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote: > > > On Wed, 2020-09-30 at 09:44 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > > > > > I started with a get_policy() callback, but I didn't like it much. > > > > Static data is much more pleasant for a client of the API IMHO. > > > > > > Yeah, true. > > > > > > > What do you think about "ops light"? Insufficiently flexible? > > > > > > TBH, I'm not really sure how you'd do it? > > > > There are very few users who actually access ops, I was thinking that > > callers to genl_get_cmd() should declare a full struct genl_ops on the > > stack (or in some context, not sure yet), and then genl_get_cmd() will > > fill it in. > > > > If family has full ops it will do a memcpy(); if the ops are "light" it > > can assign the right pointers. > > > > Plus it can propagate the policy and maxattr from family if needed in > > both cases. > > Oh, so you were thinking you'd have to sort of decide on the *family* > level whether you want "light" or "heavy" ops? > > Hm. I guess you could even have both? > > struct genl_ops *ops; > struct genl_ops_ext *extops; > > and then search both arrays, no need for memcpy/pointer assignment?
Yup, both should work quite nicely, too. No reason to force one or the other. Extra n_ops_ext should be fine, I think I can make n_ops a u8 in the first place, since commands themselves are u8s. And 0 is commonly unused.
