Dnia Thursday 03 of July 2008, Gerrit Renker napisał: > We were at this point already and agreed not to change parameter <-> qdisc > relationship between versions. No, we didn't. I still don't get how you wish to add more parameters if there is a need to do so. Adding new policies is an overkill if addition of new parameters just extends existing functionality and does not create something completely new and incompatible. I'd be grateful if you could sketch how do you wish to add new "timeout" parameter. Kernel implementation is not particularly important to me right now. I would like to know how applications are supposed to use DCCP in 4 scenarios: 1. The application wants to use the old behaviour (that is simple policy with no parameters). 2. The application wants to use prio policy but needs no parameters. 3. The application wants to attach priority information to each packet. 4. The application wants to attach priority and timeout information to each packet. If kernel cannot process timeout then fall back to priority information only. -- 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
