Re: [PATCH RFC 11/20] ctlv: Prepare runtime introspection

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Mon, Oct 26, 2026 at 03:52:30PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >device-get:
> >  request: {}
> >  reply:
> >    caps:
> >      evidence?:
> >        min-challenge-length: uint
> >        max-challenge-length: uint
> >        max-total-output-length: uint
> >        objects[]:
> >          blob-class: evidence-blob-class
> >          format: string
> >          representation: evidence-representation
> >          max-length: uint
> >      mr?:
> >        mr-flags: mr-device-caps
> >    info:
> >      $extend: device-info
> >
> >So.. how about could we drop the sets, use a direct description of the
> >layout and do something else for the ID numbering? Maybe the numbering
> >can be solved directly by only listing the names in:
> 
> I didn't want to have a lot of duplications. Netlink show us that the
> same attr, or attr group (or nest) is often used in multiple ops. It is
> not good to repeat them each time (multiple obvious reasons), so I came
> with the sets and groups. But I will think about how to make this
> possible to be formatted in more readable way.

If a "record" is re-used in multiple places, then sure, put it in one
spot, not disagreeing with that.

That can still work out with a clearer top down flow, more like C:

records:
   evidence-object:
          blob-class: evidence-blob-class
          format: string
          representation: evidence-representation
          max-length: uint

ops:
  device-get:
    reply:
      caps:
       evidence?:
	 objects[]: record evidence-object

Jason