From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner Subject: Re: [RFC 4/5] netlink: prepare validate extack setting for recursion Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 14:48:01 -0300 Message-ID: <20180920174801.GI10070@localhost.localdomain> References: <20180918131212.20266-1-johannes@sipsolutions.net> <20180918131212.20266-4-johannes@sipsolutions.net> <20180919033733.GK4590@localhost.localdomain> <1537349117.10305.25.camel@sipsolutions.net> <20180919184652.GL4590@localhost.localdomain> <1537384771.10305.68.camel@sipsolutions.net> <20180919211048.GN4590@localhost.localdomain> <1537431250.3874.7.camel@sipsolutions.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Berg Return-path: Received: from mail-qk1-f180.google.com ([209.85.222.180]:41321 "EHLO mail-qk1-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727771AbeITXcn (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Sep 2018 19:32:43 -0400 Received: by mail-qk1-f180.google.com with SMTP id n3-v6so5304663qkn.8 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 10:48:05 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1537431250.3874.7.camel@sipsolutions.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 10:14:10AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > Anyway - we got into this discussion because of all the extra recursion > stuff I was adding. With the change suggested by David we don't need > that now at all, so I guess it'd be better to propose a patch if you (or > perhaps I will see a need later) need such a facility for multiple > messages or multiple message levels? Yep! Thanks, Marcelo