Dnia Wednesday 16 of April 2008, Gerrit Renker napisał:
> Quoting Tomasz Grobelny:
> | Dnia Tuesday 15 of April 2008, Gerrit Renker napisa?:
> | > | > @@ -501,6 +519,8 @@ struct dccp_sock {
> | > | > struct ccid *dccps_hc_rx_ccid;
> | > | > struct ccid *dccps_hc_tx_ccid;
> | > | > struct dccp_options_received dccps_options_received;
> | > | > + __u8 dccps_qpolicy;
> | > | > + __u32 dccps_tx_qlen;
> | > | > enum dccp_role dccps_role:2;
> | > | > __u8 dccps_hc_rx_insert_options:1;
> | > | > __u8 dccps_hc_tx_insert_options:1;
> | > |
> | > | I know that currently none of the policies has any per-socket data.
> | > | But if it had were should it go?
> | >
> | > I can't see anything wrong with putting everything into dccp_sock. To
> | > do it well, we could consider inserting documentation such as "this
> | > section is only for queueing policies" (as is done very well for struct
> | > tcp_sock).
> |
> | Let me remind you your comment made on 18/03/2008 on dccp ml to my first
> | patch:
> | --- START ---
> | @@ -545,6 +549,8 @@ struct dccp_sock {
> | __u8 dccps_hc_tx_insert_options:1;
> | __u8 dccps_server_timewait:1;
> | struct timer_list dccps_xmit_timer;
> | + struct queuing_policy *dccps_policy;
> | + void *dccps_policy_data;
> | };
> |
> | I think this should be just one field for the policy, and the
> | policy_data can be an internal field of `struct queueing_policy'
> | (compare with struct ackvec or struct ccid).
> | --- END ---
>
> Hm, even after reading it again I still find that I don't like void*
> fields. It may be a personal thing, but I think using void* as part of a
> field is bad (and this was in an even earlier comment).
>
The next paragraph was in fact about void* pointers. But the paragraph I
quoted above talks only about whether those three values (policy
numer/pointer, tx_qlen and possibly other data) should be put directly in
struct dccp_sock or grouped in stuct queueing_policy which in turn should be
one field in struct dccp_sock. In the mail from 18/03/2008 you seemed to be
in favour of grouping, in the one from 15/04/2008 you seemed to contradict
your earlier statement. At least that's how I understood it.
But never mind, both ways are ok for me.
--
Regards,
Tomasz Grobelny
--
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
