[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1491593399.5800.14.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 21:29:59 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] netlink: extended error reporting
On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 21:27 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
>
> > Also another way to look at this is that we're providing a lot of
> > new power and expressability. So even if only one aspect of the
> > new error reporting is used it's a positive step forward.
True.
> > So allow offset "0" meaning "unspecified".
>
> Instead, we can just not send the offset attribute to userspace if
> it's not specified. So missing attribute means "unspecified".
>
> I'm always a bit worried this "0 means something" semantics :)
Yeah, I have that. If it's 0 internally the attribute will be omitted.
johannes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists