On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 10:15:23 +0000, Gerrit Renker wrote:
> Since ccid4_hc_tx_x_header_penalty() is called in both the if/else
> branches, it looks to me that you can put it before the if/else.
> If you then wanted to abstract this function, it looks as if a wrapper
> could be used:
>
> ccid4_hc_tx_update_x(hctx)
> {
> ccid4_hc_tx_x_header_penalty(hctx);
> tfrc_hc_tx_update_x(...);
> }
>
> Makes sense?
ccid4_hc_tx_x_header_penalty() modifies hctx->ccid4hctx_x. If new x
differs from old x at the end of ccid4_hc_tx_update_x(),
ccid4_update_send_interval() is called. As far as I can see, if we
wanted to have tfrc_hc_tx_update_x(), the caller of that function would
have to deal with changed x by calling *_update_send_interval(), which
is CCID-dependant.
Maybe tfrc_hc_tx_update_x() could update x, return old x, and indeed let
the caller to call ccid4_hc_tx_x_header_penalty(), if wanted, and
finally *_update_send_interval, if necessary. Since
ccid4_hc_tx_update_x() is currently called from two different places, we
could have something like this instead:
static void ccid4_hc_tx_update_x(hctx)
{
const __u64 old_x = tfrc_hc_tx_update_x(hctx);
ccid4_hc_tx_x_header_penalty(hctx);
if (hctx->ccid4hctx_x != old_x)
ccid4_update_send_interval(hctx);
}
And respectively:
static void ccid3_hc_tx_update_x(hctx)
{
const __u64 old_x = tfrc_hc_tx_update_x(hctx);
if (hctx->ccid4hctx_x != old_x)
ccid3_update_send_interval(hctx);
}
Finally, tfrc_hc_tx_update_x() should be trimmed a little:
@@ -198,3 +198,2
- if (hctx->ccid4hctx_x != old_x)
- foo_update_send_interval(hctx);
+ return old_x;
}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
