On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 09:19 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > > > + NUM_NLMSGERR_ATTRS, > > According to the rest of the uapi, this should be rather named: > __NLMSGERR_ATTR_MAX
nl80211 uses NUM_ so I guess that's a matter of convention, but I can change that I guess. > > if (err || (nlh->nlmsg_flags & NLM_F_ACK)) > > - netlink_ack(skb, nlh, err); > > + netlink_ack(skb, nlh, err, NULL); > > Wouldn't it make sense to leave netlink_ack as is and add > netlink_ack_ext for those who need to pass non-null? I thought about it, but didn't really see much point. The churn isn't super big (a dozen callers or so), and I thought it makes sense to point out to the users that there's something here. johannes
