* Johannes Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-09-27 14:18
> On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 11:44 +0200, Thomas Graf wrote:
>
> > Thinking it over I'm still not completely happy with this. A
> > small subset of all the validation tasks is simply too complex
> > to be put into the policy. The validation of your type value
> > array is such a case, address fields with variable length based
> > on their family is another. I think it's just not worth to
> > blow up struct nla_policy by 12 bytes per entry just to save
> > some code.
>
> Oh, I just had another idea... Feel free to ignore me if you think that
> having this done in some generic way isn't worth it though. As I said,
> it doesn't really make a difference to me in the end :)
>
>
> Currently, we always pass a "struct nla_policy *policy" into things,
> which really is an array. We could instead pass in a new
>
> struct nla_validation {
> int (*custom_validate)(struct nlattr *nla);
> struct nla_policy *policy;
> };
>
> and call custom_validate() whenever we encounter something in the policy
> that has type NLA_CUSTOM_VALIDATE. Downsides of this approach are that
> it requires changing all current users, and introduces 16 bytes constant
> overhead on 64-bit platforms, the size of nla_validation.
Sorry for the delay.
That's not a bad idea, although it seems cleaner to just allow defining
a callback function which gets called foreach unknown attribute. As for
generic netlink, this callback could be defined on a per command basis
in struct genl_ops.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
