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
