[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190704121718.GS20101@unicorn.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 14:17:18 +0200
From: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
To: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
John Linville <linville@...driver.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 06/15] ethtool: netlink bitset handling
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).
Michal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists