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

[Jiri Pirko]

Mon, Oct 26, 2026 at 05:12:20PM +0100, jgg@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>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

Okay, I like it.