On 08/08/17 20:50, Tom Herbert wrote: > It's a tradeoff. The nice thing about using strings is that we don't > need maintain a universal enum. Hmm, that makes it sound as though you're intending for random out-of-tree modules to add these things; since if they're in-tree it's easy for them to get enum values assigned when they're added. Do we really want to encourage sticking random module code into the network stack like this?
In any case, if you go with the enum approach and later it _does_ prove necessary to have more flexibility, you can have enum values dynamically assigned (like genetlink manages to do); and programs using the existing fixed IDs will continue to work. It's much harder to go the other way... -Ed
