Re: Fwd: [PATCH] [-mm] ACPI: export ACPI events via netlink

Johannes Berg
2007-07-02T14:34:15Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 958 bytes --]

On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 14:56 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:

> For information that belongs together logically a struct is fine.

Ok.

> The main reason to use nested attributes is when you only have a
> single attribute to store your data in (for example TCA_OPTIONS
> for qdiscs). In that case a nested attribute should be used to
> allow to extend it in the future. Below that nested attribute
> you could put a struct of course.

Right, but that's not applicable to this unless I'm misunderstanding
you.

> In this case I think using a string attribute instead of a fixed
> sized structure also makes sense for a different reason. Its
> unlikely that groups will really use the maximum name length
> allowed, so it should save some bandwidth.

I suppose if I put (ID,name) into the struct it needn't be fixed-size
length, but I dislike that as well. Do I understand you correctly in
that you prefer the way I did it now?

johannes

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 190 bytes --]