On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 05:04:55PM +0000, Hefty, Sean wrote: > > Not in the patches themselves but in the general issue when a PR changes. > > > > Do you think this needs addressing or are things fine as they are now ? > > IMO, I think it needs addressing in terms of "can the proposed > netlink architecture and design accommodate this sort of request in > the future?" We shouldn't design in a limitation up front. I don't > see anything in the current approach that would cause an issue. > There would likely be a need for new messages and attributes.
I think the kernel netlink side is fine. But userspace needs to understand what to do if it gets a request with an attribute it does not understand. It should tell the kernel 'no, do it yourself', rather than try and answer. That also suggests we should have optional and mandatory netlink nested attributes. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
