On Mon, 2006-10-02 at 15:49 +0200, Thomas Graf wrote:
> That's not a bad idea, although it seems cleaner to just allow defining
> a callback function which gets called foreach unknown attribute.
Hm, that'd work too, but it'd force me to leave these 'unknown
attributes' at the end of the attribute
* Johannes Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-09-27 14:18
> On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 11:44 +0200, Thomas Graf wrote:
>
> > Thinking it over I'm still not completely happy with this. A
> > small subset of all the validation tasks is simply too complex
> > to be put into the policy. The validation of your t
On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 11:44 +0200, Thomas Graf wrote:
> Thinking it over I'm still not completely happy with this. A
> small subset of all the validation tasks is simply too complex
> to be put into the policy. The validation of your type value
> array is such a case, address fields with variable
From: Johannes Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:04:34 +0200
> On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 11:44 +0200, Thomas Graf wrote:
>
> > Thinking it over I'm still not completely happy with this. A
> > small subset of all the validation tasks is simply too complex
> > to be put into the policy
* Johannes Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-09-26 09:25
> This patch adds an NLA_CUSTOM_CHECK type for netlink attributes
> in order to be able to centrally define new attribute structures
> instead of having to check these special types in each function
> that uses such an attribute.
Thinking it ove
On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 11:44 +0200, Thomas Graf wrote:
> Thinking it over I'm still not completely happy with this. A
> small subset of all the validation tasks is simply too complex
> to be put into the policy. The validation of your type value
> array is such a case, address fields with variable
