Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 Mar 2019 12:38:05 +0100 | From | Jiri Pirko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next v5 01/22] rtnetlink: provide permanent hardware address in RTM_NEWLINK |
| |
Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:31:15AM CET, mkubecek@suse.cz wrote: >On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:08:36AM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >> I don't think we should put permaddr if driver did not set it. 2 >> solutions: >> 1) provide a helper that driver will use to set the perm_addr. This >> helper sets a "valid bit". Then you only put IFLA_PERM_ADDRESS >> in case the "valid bit" is set. >> 2) Assuming that no driver would set permaddr to all zeroes, >> don't put IFLA_PERM_ADDRESS in case permadd is all zeroes. > >I already replied to similar suggestion in v4 discussion: > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1060164/#2117512 > >But I don't have really strong opinion about this. The problem with not >being able to distinguish between "no/unknown permanent address" and >"old kernel not providing the information" is going to become less >important over time.
If the attribute is sent to userspace, it should mean the permaddr is there and valid.
> >Michal
| |