From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Berg Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCH] [-mm] ACPI: export ACPI events via netlink Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 16:34:43 +0200 Message-ID: <1183386883.4089.120.camel@johannes.berg> References: <1179827251.7707.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4466a10705270629h31977813hd2fc8330bcd87f78@mail.gmail.com> <4466a10705270634j3560c9a3j9c3630ddc20a24aa@mail.gmail.com> <1181811576.5411.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1181820510.4091.9.camel@localhost> <1181869285.5411.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1182178882.4063.11.camel@localhost> <1182223964.5411.76.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1182811210.6644.22.camel@johannes.berg> <1182986681.5155.55.camel@localhost> <1183121869.4089.57.camel@johannes.berg> <468504FE.9000502@trash.net> <1183122920.4089.63.camel@johannes.berg> <468507C9.2000800@trash.net> <1183124085.4089.66.camel@johannes.berg> <46850CB8.8000509@trash.net> <1183124981.4089.69.camel@johannes.berg> <46850EDE.5020804@trash.net> <1183125924.4089.73.camel@johannes.berg> <1183126739.4089.76.camel@johannes.berg> <1183129006.4089.84.camel@johannes.berg> <1183217536.5165.25.camel@localhost> <1183365821.4089.94.camel@johannes.berg> <4688F612.1060408@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-fzTMNlQU3GC3Z/Ulc/1b" Cc: hadi@cyberus.ca, Zhang Rui , netdev@vger.kernel.org, "linux-acpi@vger" , lenb@kernel.org, Thomas Graf To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4688F612.1060408@trash.net> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org --=-fzTMNlQU3GC3Z/Ulc/1b Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 --=-fzTMNlQU3GC3Z/Ulc/1b Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Johannes Berg (powerbook) iD8DBQBGiQ0D/ETPhpq3jKURAnBMAKCZzcCv7tY1k8LvuVazqB5zY2VrHACfdoth r64nbmI+vAUGhbjhxg0Pt18= =m7up -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-fzTMNlQU3GC3Z/Ulc/1b--