Dnia Thursday 19 of June 2008, Gerrit Renker napisał: > But such a bottom-up approach would not necessarily make sense, since > likely the policy will do a bit more work than just reacting to the > parameters it uses, which leads to the next point. > Agreed. > | Could be nice, but what happens if we have two policies with the same set > | of supported parameters? How do we differentiate them? In the above: how > | do we diffrentiate between simple policy (which doesn't have any > | parameters ever) and prio policy with no parameters (just because we > | don't need to provide any for one particular case)? > > We could still encode the parameters in the policy ID, by splitting the > bitmask, e.g. the low 24 bits to encode parameters, and the high 8 bits > to encode the policies using the same combination of parameters. > Yes, technically we could do it this way. Encoding accepted parameters in policy ID would provide applications with means to check whether certain parameters are supported. But should we mix two IMO distinct concepts (policy behaviour and accepted parameters) in one bitfield? I'd rather have them separated. Keeping policy IDs as they are and using a bitfield for just parameters could be a nice idea. It would certainly simplify checking which parameters are supported - just a simple & and == would suffice. -- 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
