On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 14:17 +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote: > On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 02:03:02PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 13:52 +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote: > > > > > > There is still the question if it it should be implemented as a nested > > > attribute which could look like the current compact form without the > > > "list" flag (if there is no mask, it's a list). Or an unstructured data > > > block consisting of u32 bit length > > > > You wouldn't really need the length, since the attribute has a length > > already :-) > > It has byte length, not bit length. The bitmaps we are dealing with > can have any bit length, not necessarily multiples of 8 (or even 32).
Not sure why that matters? You have the mask, so you don't really need to additionally say that you're only going up to a certain bit? I mean, say you want to set some bits <=17, why would you need to say that they're <=17 if you have a value: 0b00000000'000000xx'xxxxxxxx'xxxxxxxx mask: 0b00000000'00000011'11111111'11111111 johannes
