| > | c) allow qpolicy to use each cmsg header as different parameter. So that | > (...) | > I think (c) is best, here is what I'd support. | > (...) | Seems we are getting closer in our views, see the just sent patch. | That would be good - what I would like to do is to replace the 12 or so patches in git://eden-feed.erg.abdn.ac.uk/dccp_exp [qpolicy subtree] with a single patch and then put it into the test tree. Will answer regarding the other patch separately and then resubmit the combined patch to the list - if you are ok with it, you can add your signed-off or point out where you disagree. It remains your patch. What I'd still like to do is some testing on different architectures. | > I.e. to answer the question, I think it is best to implement "timeout" | > first, solve the problems it brings up; when that is done, | > "priority+timeout" will be easy to do - it could be constructed just out of | > the existing functions defined for "priority" and "timeout". | > | > In that manner, other policies can be modularly constructed - for instance | > by combining "timeout" with a different form of the "priority" policy. | > | I'm not entirely sure if such modular constructions would be possible. I | prefer to think of "timeout policy" and "prio policy" as a special cases | of "timeout+prio policy" with respectively DCCP_SCM_PRIORITY and | DCCP_SCM_TIMEOUT not supplied (and thus set to their default values: 0 and | INFINITY). | -- It depends on the way one looks at it. Your view is top-down, mine is bottom-up, both can work. Agree with the parameters. 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
