From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Benc Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 net-next 03/25] netlink: introduce NLM_F_DUMP_PROPER_HDR flag Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 13:27:55 +0200 Message-ID: <20181002132755.267a11fe@redhat.com> References: <20181002002851.5002-1-dsahern@kernel.org> <20181002002851.5002-4-dsahern@kernel.org> <20181002130614.77856ff8@redhat.com> <20181002111831.j6ov4bqhy3zi3vj6@brauner.io> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Ahern , netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, stephen@networkplumber.org, David Ahern To: Christian Brauner Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58468 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727345AbeJBSKt (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2018 14:10:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20181002111831.j6ov4bqhy3zi3vj6@brauner.io> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 13:18:32 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > I didn't find this in the linked thread. Maybe it was suggested in another thread or in person on a conference, I can't remember, it's too long ago, sorry. > What I find interesting and convincing is one of Dave's points: > > "I'm beginning to wonder if we can just change this unilaterally to > not ignore unrecognized attributes. > > I am increasingly certain that things that would "break" we wouldn't > want to succeed anyways." [1] It's unfortunate we can't do that. I'd like it. > But a socket option or this header flag both sound acceptable to me. Was > there any more detail on how a socket option would look like, i.e. an > api proposal or something? Look at how NETLINK_CAP_ACK and NETLINK_EXT_ACK is implemented. Jiri