Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 03:44:57PM CEST, johan...@sipsolutions.net wrote: >On Wed, 2019-07-03 at 13:49 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >> > +Value and mask must have length at least ETHTOOL_A_BITSET_SIZE bits >> > rounded up >> > +to a multiple of 32 bits. They consist of 32-bit words in host byte order, >> >> Looks like the blocks are similar to NLA_BITFIELD32. Why don't you user >> nested array of NLA_BITFIELD32 instead? > >That would seem kind of awkward to use, IMHO. > >Perhaps better to make some kind of generic "arbitrary size bitfield" >attribute type?
Yep, I believe I was trying to make this point during bitfield32 discussion, failed apparently. So if we have "NLA_BITFIELD" with arbitrary size, that sounds good to me. > >Not really sure we want the complexity with _LIST and _SIZE, since you >should always be able to express it as _VALUE and _MASK, right? > >Trying to think how we should express this best - bitfield32 is just a >mask/value struct, for arbitrary size I guess we *could* just make it >kind of a binary with arbitrary length that must be a multiple of 2 >bytes (or 2 u32-bit-words?) and then the first half is the value and the >second half is the mask? Some more validation would be nicer, but having >a generic attribute that actually is nested is awkward too. > >johannes > >
