lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 02 Jul 2007 16:34:43 +0200
From:	Johannes Berg <>
To:	Patrick McHardy <>
Cc:, Zhang Rui <>,,
	"linux-acpi@...r" <>,,
	Thomas Graf <>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCH] [-mm] ACPI: export ACPI events via netlink

On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 14:56 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:

> For information that belongs together logically a struct is fine.


> The main reason to use nested attributes is when you only have a
> single attribute to store your data in (for example TCA_OPTIONS
> for qdiscs). In that case a nested attribute should be used to
> allow to extend it in the future. Below that nested attribute
> you could put a struct of course.

Right, but that's not applicable to this unless I'm misunderstanding

> In this case I think using a string attribute instead of a fixed
> sized structure also makes sense for a different reason. Its
> unlikely that groups will really use the maximum name length
> allowed, so it should save some bandwidth.

I suppose if I put (ID,name) into the struct it needn't be fixed-size
length, but I dislike that as well. Do I understand you correctly in
that you prefer the way I did it now?


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (191 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists