On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 16:58:33 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote: > > > Or just give them both? I mean, in many (most?) cases they're anyway > > > going to be the same, so with the patches I posted you could just give > > > them the two different policy indexes, and they can be the same? > > > > Ah, I missed your posting! > > Huh, I even CC'ed you I think?
I filter stuff which is to:netdev cc:me and get to it when I read the ML. There's too much of it. > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20201002090944.195891-1-johan...@sipsolutions.net/t/#u > > and userspace: > > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20201002102609.224150-1-johan...@sipsolutions.net/t/#u > > > Like this? > > > > [OP_POLICY] > > [OP] > > [DO] -> u32 > > [DUMP] -> u32 > > Yeah, that'd work. I'd probably wonder if we shouldn't do > > [OP_POLICY] > [OP] -> (u32, u32) > > in a struct with two u32's, since that's quite a bit more compact. What do we do if the op doesn't have a dump or do callback? 0 is a valid policy ID, sadly :(
