On Friday, 4 January 2019 02.40.06 CET Linus Lüssing wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 02:58:32PM +0100, Sven Eckelmann wrote:
> > +	/**
> > +	 * @BATADV_ATTR_AGGREGATED_OGMS: whether the batman protocol messages
> > +	 *  of the mesh mesh interface shall be aggregated or not.
> > +	 */
> > +	BATADV_ATTR_AGGREGATED_OGMS,
> > +
> 
> I'm wondering, would it make sense to take this opportunity to
> rename this to BATADV_ATTR_AGGREGATION? In case we were adding
> aggregation support to something other than OGMs in the future.
> 
> (and maybe even make it a u32 to be able to potentially use it as
> a bitfield with a useable length?)
> 
> And I know, the generic aggregation patchset was rejected. But on
> the other hand I don't think that OGMs are that special that they
> will always be the only packet type worth aggregating.
> 

Any suggestions from Jiri regarding this?

Kind regards,
	Sven