| > | @@ -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.
| --
Those things only became clearer when looking at the code for a while. I
have reworked some of your userland code and done some tests with it.
There was a bug with the 32-bit compatibility layer, I have posted a
message to netdev. On x86 it was found to work correctly.
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
