From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCH] [-mm] ACPI: export ACPI events via netlink Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 16:38:48 +0200 Message-ID: <46890DF8.2020706@trash.net> References: <1179827251.7707.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> <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> <1183386883.4089.120.camel@johannes.ber g> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: hadi@cyberus.ca, Zhang Rui , netdev@vger.kernel.org, "linux-acpi@vger" , lenb@kernel.org, Thomas Graf To: Johannes Berg Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:51502 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756264AbXGBOjJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jul 2007 10:39:09 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1183386883.4089.120.camel@johannes.berg> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Johannes Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 14:56 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: > >>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. Not really, it already uses a nested top-level attribute. >>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. Me too. > Do I understand you correctly in that you prefer the way I did it now? Yes.