On Tue, 2017-02-14 at 21:09 +0100, Arend Van Spriel wrote: > On 14-2-2017 14:12, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-02-14 at 14:07 +0100, Arend Van Spriel wrote: > > > > > > No. But there was a size limit on how much older userspace > > > > could > > > > process before we did the splitting. > > > > > > I see. So basically adding stuff to (split_start == 0) is not > > > wanted. > > > > Correct. > > Uhm. Now I am staring at the code there and wonder about following. > Up until (split_start == 7) I see: > > state->split_start++; > if (state->split) > break; > > For the remaining cases the break is unconditional. Any idea how to > interpret that?
Yeah, actually, adding stuff to anything where split_start < 7 is therefore not wanted :-) The thing is that we if no split is accepted by the userspace tool (state->split is false) then we have to send everything in one big message. This is everything until split_start == 7, I guess. After that, there's only new stuff that such old userspace will be unable to interpret anyway, so the break is then unconditional - old userspace without split will never see those new capabilities, and new userspace can deal with the split. johannes
