On 03/24/2015 06:21 AM, Tomasz Bursztyka wrote:
Quickly, as an RFC, does this look better?
For building message I think either one uses l_genl_msg or l_genl_msg_builder.
Thus I changed l_genl_msg_builder_new(): it creates the l_genl_msg by itself.
Only when one calls l_genl_msg_builder_finalize(), he will get a reference on
the message. Such reference l_genl_family_send() will unref, or that he will
in case of error.
Does that look saner? At least it avoids the user to call l_genl_msg_new()
and again l_genl_msg_builder() afterwards. I think it's better to separate
I kept the queue for the nested of nested etc... I still want your opinion:
either a queue or a fixed depth of nested of nested ? or we don't care?
(I think we do care).
I sent my own take on this. I was playing around with it yesterday.
The only thing I'm not sure about is whether the nested message length
is aligned or not. Looking at libnl code it seems to be always aligned,
but if someone can whip up a quick unit test, that would be really helpful.