Hi Denis,

> I sent my own take on this.  I was playing around with it yesterday.

Which is the exact same thing as I first proposed in "[PATCH] genl: Add 
utility function no append nested attribute into a message"
plus the nested of nested stuff I added in the other one via the fixed 
table I advised also (on which I am still waiting feedback). That's fine.
But such API was requested to be moved into the "builder" type of thing 
like DBus does.

> The only thing I'm not sure about is whether the nested message length 
> is aligned or not.  Looking at libnl code it seems to be always 
> aligned, but if someone can whip up a quick unit test, that would be 
> really helpful. 

Seriously?


So guys what's the decision then: which API is the right one here?
Can we clear this up once and for all? There are dependent code that 
cannot proceed until this is over.
This is a show-stopper.

Tomasz