> for a family pointer in later patches.
Seems fine to me, but I'm not sure I buy the rationale that it's for
saving space - it's a single pointer on the stack? I'd probably argue
the computation being pointless for basically everyone except for a
handful users?
Reviewed-by: Johann
On Mon, 2022-03-07 at 21:45 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>
> Let me add some people I associate with genetlink work in my head
> (fairly or not) to keep me fair here.
:)
> It's highly unacceptable for user space to straight up rewrite kernel
> uAPI types
>
Agree.
> but if it already happened
On Fri, 2017-06-23 at 12:13 +0200, Matthias Schiffer wrote:
>
> I was told the extended netlink error facilities were not ready yet,
> has that changed since the last release?
Yes, the facility is in the kernel tree now.
> Anyways, I will gladly work on improving the error handling if
> someone
On Thu, 2017-04-13 at 14:44 -0700, Joe Stringer wrote
(something that never made it to the list, due to HTML formatting)
>
> I think that OVS was doing some more elaborate validation than most
> users, so over time we picked up a bunch of extra parsing code that
> layers on top of nla_parse(). I
