From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f196.google.com ([209.85.128.196]:32870 "EHLO mail-wr0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754029AbdDKINt (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Apr 2017 04:13:49 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-f196.google.com with SMTP id l28so7227821wre.0 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 01:13:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 10:13:46 +0200 From: Jiri Pirko To: Johannes Berg Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, pablo@netfilter.org, Jamal Hadi Salim , Jiri Benc , David Ahern Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 1/5] netlink: extended ACK reporting Message-ID: <20170411081346.GD1976@nanopsycho> (sfid-20170411_101509_368218_37CB131D) References: <20170411065700.2623-1-johannes@sipsolutions.net> <20170411065700.2623-2-johannes@sipsolutions.net> <20170411071900.GC1976@nanopsycho> <1491895758.31620.4.camel@sipsolutions.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1491895758.31620.4.camel@sipsolutions.net> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 09:29:18AM CEST, johannes@sipsolutions.net wrote: >On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 09:19 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >> > + NUM_NLMSGERR_ATTRS, >> >> According to the rest of the uapi, this should be rather named: >> __NLMSGERR_ATTR_MAX > >nl80211 uses NUM_ so I guess that's a matter of convention, but I can >change that I guess. Please do. > >> > if (err || (nlh->nlmsg_flags & NLM_F_ACK)) >> > - netlink_ack(skb, nlh, err); >> > + netlink_ack(skb, nlh, err, NULL); >> >> Wouldn't it make sense to leave netlink_ack as is and add >> netlink_ack_ext for those who need to pass non-null? > >I thought about it, but didn't really see much point. The churn isn't >super big (a dozen callers or so), and I thought it makes sense to >point out to the users that there's something here. Makes sense.