On Fri, 2020-10-02 at 08:09 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 17:04:11 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote: > > > > Yeah, that'd work. I'd probably wonder if we shouldn't do > > > > > > > > [OP_POLICY] > > > > [OP] -> (u32, u32) > > > > > > > > in a struct with two u32's, since that's quite a bit more compact. > > > > > > What do we do if the op doesn't have a dump or do callback? > > > 0 is a valid policy ID, sadly :( > > > > Hm, good point. We could do -1 since that can't ever be reached though. > > > > But compactness isn't really that necessary here anyway, so ... > > Cool, sounds like a plan. > > This series should be good to merge, then.
I suppose, I thought you wanted to change it to have separate dump/do policies? Whatever you like there, I don't really care much :) But I can also change my patches later to separately advertise dump/do policies, and simply always use the same one for now. But this series does conflict with the little bugfix I also sent, could you please take a look? https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20201002094604.480c760e3c47.I7811da1539351a26cd0e5a10b98a8842cfbc1b55@changeid/ I'm not really sure how to handle. Thanks, johannes
