Re: [PATCH net-next v8 2/3] net sched actions: dump more than TCA_ACT_MAX_PRIO actions per batch

[Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>]

Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 03:22:53AM CEST, jhs@mojatatu.com wrote:
>On 17-04-27 02:30 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:07:08PM CEST, jhs@mojatatu.com wrote:
>> > On 17-04-26 09:56 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> > > Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:14:38PM CEST, jhs@mojatatu.com wrote:
>
>> > I think to have flags at that level is useful but it
>> > is a different hierarchy level. I am not sure the
>> > "actions dump large messages" is a fit for that level.
>> 
>> Jamal, the idea is to have exactly what you want to have. Only does not
>> use NLA_U32 attr for that but a special attr NLA_FLAGS which would have
>> well defined semantics and set of helpers to work with and enforce it.
>> 
>> Then, this could be easily reused in other subsystem that uses netlink
>> 
>
>Maybe I am misunderstanding:
>Recall, this is what it looks like with this patchset:
><nlh><subsytem-header>[TCA_ROOT_XXXX]
>
>TCA_ROOT_XXX is very subsystem specific. classifiers, qdiscs and many
>subsystems defined their own semantics for that TLV level. This specific
>"dump max" is very very specific to actions. They were crippled by the
>fact you could only send 32 at a time - this allows more to be sent.
>
>I thought initially you meant:
><nlh>[NLA_XXX]<subsytem-header>[TCA_ROOT_XXXX]
>
>I think at the NLA_XXX you could fit netlink wide TLVs - but if i said
>"do a large dump" it is of no use to any other subsystem.

Okay, I'm sorry, I had couple of beers yesterday so that might be
the cause why your msg makes me totally confused :O

All I suggest is to replace NLA_U32 flags you want that does not
have any semantics with NLA_FLAGS flags, which eventually will carry
the exact same u32, but with predefined semantics, helpers, everything.