From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Subject: Re: comment about struct tcp_tw_bucket in struct sock Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 21:52:58 -0300 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20030522005258.GC13028@conectiva.com.br> References: <20030513210541.GA4415@suse.de> <20030513.163150.28800008.davem@redhat.com> <20030514083236.GD8290@Wotan.suse.de> <20030514.121806.41651014.davem@redhat.com> <20030514192117.GA31303@Wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "David S. Miller" , olh@suse.de, marcelo@conectiva.com.br, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Andi Kleen Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030514192117.GA31303@Wotan.suse.de> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Em Wed, May 14, 2003 at 09:21:17PM +0200, Andi Kleen escreveu: > On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:18:06PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > > From: Andi Kleen > > Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 10:32:36 +0200 > > > > On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 04:31:50PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > > > It's documented in tcp.h already. > > > > Just not everybody changing sock.h also reads tcp.h :-( > > > > You assume that protocols in the tree are the only thing > > that might break if you edit struct sock. > > I'm not assuming anything and didn't even edit struct sock, just pointing > out that such a fragile hack as the current tw bucket is needs an explicit > comment on both places. > > Best would be to bite the bullet and give them a common structure. Ah if we could just use a unnamed struct... 8) - Arnaldo