From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] pkt_sched: sch_generic: Add generic qdisc->ops->peek() implementation. Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:43:15 +0000 Message-ID: <20081016124315.GA20302@ff.dom.local> References: <20081016094748.GD19019@ff.dom.local> <48F73159.4060700@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Herbert Xu To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: Received: from ik-out-1112.google.com ([66.249.90.177]:14337 "EHLO ik-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750787AbYJPMnW (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2008 08:43:22 -0400 Received: by ik-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id c30so2439166ika.5 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 05:43:20 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48F73159.4060700@trash.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 02:19:37PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: > Jarek Poplawski wrote: >> pkt_sched: sch_generic: Add generic qdisc->ops->peek() implementation. >> > >> + if (qops->peek == NULL) >> + qops->peek = noop_qdisc_ops.peek; >> if (qops->dequeue == NULL) >> qops->dequeue = noop_qdisc_ops.dequeue; > > ->dequeue and ->peek are somewhat tied together, so I think we should > only use the noop variants if both are unset. Whether this should be > checked here of before merging new qdiscs is a different question of > course :) Actually, there is much less users of ->peek. Do you mean to always check for NULL before using? It was meant mainly for these non-work-conserving qdisc in case patch 6/6 isn't merged. Of course, IMHO it should be enough to implement this always (while merging), but this code above could be misleading what is optional/mandatory. (Please make it clear which way do you prefer and I'll redo, no problem.) Jarek P.