Hi Ivo,
you have made a really good job of sticking to code conventions (see other
posting). There are a few things that needed tending to in the first patch.
(1) Version changes
===================
It seems that you applied something like s/\*\*/*/g to the first instance of
the patch, in order to remove duplicate asterisks. This caused a problem:
--- tfrc_sp_receiver_01.patch 2009/09/12 08:37:12 1.1
+++ tfrc_sp_receiver_01.patch 2009/09/08 17:34:40
@@ -1001,8 +1001,8 @@ Index: dccp_tree_work4/net/dccp/ccids/li
+
+#endif
+
-+extern int tfrc_sp_tx_hist_add(struct tfrc_tx_hist_entry **headp, u64 seqno);
-+extern void tfrc_sp_tx_hist_purge(struct tfrc_tx_hist_entry **headp);
++extern int tfrc_sp_tx_hist_add(struct tfrc_tx_hist_entry *headp, u64 seqno);
++extern void tfrc_sp_tx_hist_purge(struct tfrc_tx_hist_entry *headp);
I have reverted the bug, also to minimise the difference to the existing (non
TFRC-SP) files.
(2) Other changes that I edited out
===================================
(Other than whitespace changes.)
net/dccp/ccids/lib/loss_interval_sp.c
-------------------------------------
I replaced the following dead code
if ((tfrc_lh_slab != NULL))
return 0;
if (tfrc_lh_slab != NULL) {
kmem_cache_destroy(tfrc_lh_slab);
tfrc_lh_slab = NULL;
}
return -ENOBUFS;
with
return tfrc_lh_slab == NULL ? -ENOBUFS : 0;
Also separated the conditions
+ if ((len <= 0) ||
+ (!tfrc_lh_closed_check(cur, cong_evt->tfrchrx_ccval))) {
back into
if (len <= 0)
return false;
if (!tfrc_lh_closed_check(cur, cong_evt->tfrchrx_ccval))
return false;
I removed the following unnecessary inclusion:
+#include <linux/random.h>
The following function pokes a hole in thei so far "abstract" data type;
the convention has been to access the internals of the struct only via
get-functions:
static inline struct tfrc_loss_interval
*tfrc_lh_get_loss_interval(struct tfrc_loss_hist *lh, const u8 i)
{
BUG_ON(i >= lh->counter);
return lh->ring[LIH_INDEX(lh->counter - i - 1)];
}
(You use it in patch 3/5 to gain access to li_ccval and li_losses.
Better would be to have two separate accessor functions.)
net/dccp/ccids/lib/tfrc_equation_sp.c
-------------------------------------
This is a prime candidate for removal. After editing out the whitespace
differences, I found that it is 100% identical with tfrc_equation.c.
The result of this editing has been uploaded to
http://eden-feed.erg.abdn.ac.uk/tfrc_sp_receiver_01.patch
--
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
