From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Benc Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] rtnetlink: Add get_link_af_size_filtered to rtnl_af_ops Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:55:18 +0200 Message-ID: <20151014115518.071a3996@griffin> References: <1444802314-28830-1-git-send-email-ronen.arad@intel.com> <1444802314-28830-2-git-send-email-ronen.arad@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Ronen Arad Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51014 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751742AbbJNJzV (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2015 05:55:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1444802314-28830-2-git-send-email-ronen.arad@intel.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 22:58:31 -0700, Ronen Arad wrote: > --- a/include/net/rtnetlink.h > +++ b/include/net/rtnetlink.h > @@ -130,6 +130,8 @@ struct rtnl_af_ops { > const struct nlattr *attr); > int (*set_link_af)(struct net_device *dev, > const struct nlattr *attr); > + size_t (*get_link_af_size_filtered)(const struct net_device *dev, > + u32 ext_filter_mask); > }; There's not much point in having two callbacks doing essentially the same. Why you just don't add the new parameter to the existing get_link_af_size? Looking at what the patch 3 does, the current implementations of the callback can just ignore the new parameter and bridge can remove the current br_get_link_af and rename br_get_link_af_size_filtered to br_get_link_af. Jiri -- Jiri Benc