[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7918760462738ceded5b67322fd5ad8035215fd8.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 10:10:36 +0100
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, davem@...emloft.net
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
robh@...nel.org, stephen@...workplumber.org,
ecree.xilinx@...il.com, sdf@...gle.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
fw@...len.de, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, razor@...ckwall.org,
nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com, Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/8] docs: add more netlink docs (incl. spec
docs)
On Thu, 2023-01-19 at 16:23 -0800, Jacob Keller wrote:
>
> Per op policy is important because otherwise it can become impossible to
> safely extend a new attribute to commands over multiple kernel releases.
>
Yeah. I think I just realised that my issues is more with the fact that
per-op policy implies per-op attribute (identifier/number/name)space,
and if you don't have that you have attribute duplication etc.
Anyway, it just feels superfluous, not really dangerous I guess :)
johannes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists