From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Or Gerlitz Subject: Re: private netdev flags into UAPI? Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:51:28 +0200 Message-ID: <50B462F0.1070506@mellanox.com> References: <50B1CC1B.20104@mellanox.com> <10845.1353921761@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <990.1353981789@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Or Gerlitz , netdev To: David Howells Return-path: Received: from eu1sys200aog119.obsmtp.com ([207.126.144.147]:58023 "HELO eu1sys200aog119.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1757842Ab2K0Gxp (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Nov 2012 01:53:45 -0500 In-Reply-To: <990.1353981789@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 27/11/2012 04:03, David Howells wrote: > Or Gerlitz wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 11:22 AM, David Howells wrote: >>> They were exposed to userspace already >> So the script carries the bug into a new directory... why? AFAIK, >> intentionally there's no way to read private flags from user space, so >> what's the point in defining them there? > How should the script know what's private and what's not? By the > encapsulation of code inside __KERNEL__ blocks. In their absence, everything > is assumed to be public - given it is already part of the UAPI. I don't know > that the code is private rather than the comment is wrong. > > makes sense, but I have pointed on a bug in the final result, so this way or another, the fact that the bug existed before doesn't mean we should carry it over. Or.