Ups, I didn't cc the list previously, sorry.
Gerrit Renker pisze:
| And where should struct dccp_qpolicy be defined? As it is in
qpolicy.h (can I | include it in include/linux/dccp.h?) or move it to
dccp.h?
| -- include/linux/dccp.h is exported as headerfile to userspace and so
it would be better to include it in net/dccp/dccp.h as it is already done
for net/dccp/ackvec.h
You mean these lines:
struct dccp_ackvec;
(...)
struct dccp_sock {
(...)
struct dccp_ackvec *dccps_hc_rx_ackvec;
(...)
?
Here only structure declaration suffices because dccps_hc_rx_ackvec is a
pointer. When it would become a static member then the compiler needs
its size. And consequently it needs definition. So there are two options
here:
a) keep it as a pointer (pro: clear separation of code between files,
con: it is a pointer when in fact it doesn't need to be),
b) move stuctures definition to userspace exported include/linux/dccp.h
and change field type to non pointer (pro: less hassle with memory
allocation, con: qpolicy cod will be distributed among many files).
Arnaldo, do you have any suggestions ?
It seems I have been giving the wrong advice.
But it is not really a problem. The above section is within the #ifdef
__KERNEL__ so afaik is not visible to userland. So, yes, option (b) is
the only alternative - maybe Arnaldo has a better suggestion.
struct ackvec can be declared as a pointer since it is used only by
one of the currently 3 CCIDs.
I can't see a clear way of using
dccp_sk(sk)->dccps_qpolicy == NULL
to mean "use default skb routines" (i.e. default policy), but this would
allow to use a pointer and have a fallback.
The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
--
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
