Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 09:29:18AM CEST, johan...@sipsolutions.net wrote: >On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 09:19 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >> > + NUM_NLMSGERR_ATTRS, >> >> According to the rest of the uapi, this should be rather named: >> __NLMSGERR_ATTR_MAX > >nl80211 uses NUM_ so I guess that's a matter of convention, but I can >change that I guess.
Please do. > >> > if (err || (nlh->nlmsg_flags & NLM_F_ACK)) >> > - netlink_ack(skb, nlh, err); >> > + netlink_ack(skb, nlh, err, NULL); >> >> Wouldn't it make sense to leave netlink_ack as is and add >> netlink_ack_ext for those who need to pass non-null? > >I thought about it, but didn't really see much point. The churn isn't >super big (a dozen callers or so), and I thought it makes sense to >point out to the users that there's something here. Makes sense.
