From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0556818117202973755==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Tomasz Bursztyka Subject: Re: [RFC] genl: Add a message builder API to help creating complex nl messages Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 13:04:34 +0200 Message-ID: <55129642.9020105@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <55115AB9.9070603@gmail.com> List-Id: To: ell@lists.01.org --===============0556818117202973755== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 --===============0556818117202973755==--