[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241106005237.2696-1-kuniyu@amazon.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 16:52:37 -0800
From: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>
To: <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, <daniel@...earbox.net>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<edumazet@...gle.com>, <horms@...nel.org>, <kuni1840@...il.com>,
<kuniyu@...zon.com>, <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>, <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>, <razor@...ckwall.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 net-next 3/8] rtnetlink: Add peer_type in struct rtnl_link_ops.
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 16:39:57 -0800
> On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 16:39:11 -0800 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 18:05:09 -0800 Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> > > + const unsigned char peer_type;
> >
> > technically netlink attr types are 14b wide or some such
>
> I guess compiler will warn if someone tries to use < 255
I chose 1 just because all of the three peer attr types were 1.
Should peer_type be u16 or extend when a future device use >255 for
peer ifla ?
VETH_INFO_PEER
VXCAN_INFO_PEER
IFLA_NETKIT_PEER_INFO
Powered by blists - more mailing lists