Em Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:42:38AM +0000, Gerrit Renker escreveu: > | When interfacing we must make sure that ccid3 tfrc_lh_slab is created > | and then tfrc_li_cachep is not needed. I'm doing this while keeping > | the structure of the patches, i.e. one introducing, the other removing. > | But we need to create tfrc_lh_slab if we want the tree to be bisectable. > | > | I'm doing this and keeping your Signed-off-line, please holler if you > | disagree for some reason. > If you are just shifting and reordering then that is fine with me. But > it seems you mean a different patch since in this one there is no slab > initialisation. This time around I'm not doing any reordering, just trying to use your patches as is, but adding this patch as-is produces a kernel that will crash, no? > The loss history and the RX/TX packet history slabs are all created in > tfrc.c using the three different __init routines of the dccp_tfrc_lib. Yes, the init routines are called and in turn they create the slab caches, but up to the patch "[PATCH 8/8] [PATCH v2] [CCID3]: Interface CCID3 code with newer Loss Intervals Database" the new li slab is not being created, no? See what I'm talking? - Arnaldo - 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
