Dnia Monday 23 of June 2008, Gerrit Renker napisał: > | > 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. > > Yes having them separate gives a clearer semantics. But it comes at a price > - to retrieve the parameters, we need an extra function or lookup table. > An additional bitfield in dccp_qpolicy_operations should do it when it comes to storing that information. When it comes to retrieving see next point... > Maybe there is an elegant solution which allows to encode the required > parameters while keeping the semantics clear? > What about something like: setsockopt(sockfd, DCCP_SOCKOPT_QPOLICY_ID, DCCPQ_POLICY_PRIO); to choose policy (exactly as it is now) and a new function to ensure that the kernel understands parameters: setsockopt(sockfd, DCCP_SOCKOPT_QPOLICY_PARAMS, DCCP_SCM_PRIORITY | DCCP_SCM_TIMEOUT); The second call would return an error if the kernel does not know anything about DCCP_SCM_TIMEOUT (or a choosen policy does not support it). This would have the additional benefit (over similar getsockopt) that the kernel will be able to optimize its behaviour knowning the set of parameters that will be used. What do you think about such an interface? -- 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
