From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marcelo Tosatti Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: A common layer for Accounting packages Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 06:52:04 -0300 Message-ID: <20050228095204.GH23606@logos.cnet> References: <20050227094949.GA22439@logos.cnet> <4221E548.4000008@ak.jp.nec.com> <20050227140355.GA23055@logos.cnet> <42227AEA.6050002@ak.jp.nec.com> <1109575236.8549.14.camel@frecb000711.frec.bull.fr> <20050227233943.6cb89226.akpm@osdl.org> <1109592658.2188.924.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050228132051.GO31837@postel.suug.ch> <1109598010.2188.994.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050228135307.GP31837@postel.suug.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: jamal , Andrew Morton , Guillaume Thouvenin , kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com, "David S. Miller" , jlan@sgi.com, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com, elsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To: Thomas Graf Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050228135307.GP31837@postel.suug.ch> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 02:53:07PM +0100, Thomas Graf wrote: > * jamal <1109598010.2188.994.camel@jzny.localdomain> 2005-02-28 08:40 > > > > netlink broadcast or a wrapper around it. > > Why even bother doing the check with netlink_has_listeners()? > > To implement the master enable/disable switch they want. The messages > don't get send out anyway but why bother doing all the work if nothing > will get send out in the end? It implements a well defined flag > controlled by open/close on fds (thus handles dying applications) > stating whether the whole code should be enabled or disabled. Yep - this far from "reinventing the wheel". ;) > It is of course not needed to avoid sending unnecessary messages. Thats the goal, thanks.