From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/37] dccp: Resolve dependencies of features on choice of CCID Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 21:59:31 -0300 Message-ID: <20080904005931.GG12639@ghostprotocols.net> References: <1219945512-7723-3-git-send-email-gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <1219945512-7723-4-git-send-email-gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <1219945512-7723-5-git-send-email-gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <1219945512-7723-6-git-send-email-gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <1219945512-7723-7-git-send-email-gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <1219945512-7723-8-git-send-email-gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <1219945512-7723-9-git-send-email-gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <1219945512-7723-10-git-send-email-gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <20080828210713.GP9193@ghostprotocols.net> <20080903045152.GF4105@gerrit.erg.abdn.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: Gerrit Renker , dccp@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:41326 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752439AbYIDBFf (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2008 21:05:35 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080903045152.GF4105@gerrit.erg.abdn.ac.uk> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Em Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 06:51:52AM +0200, Gerrit Renker escreveu: > | > This provides a missing link in the code chain, as several features implicitly > | > depend and/or rely on the choice of CCID. Most notably, this is the Send Ack Vector > | > feature, but also Ack Ratio and Send Loss Event Rate (also taken care of). > | > > > | > | Doesn't this belongs into struct ccid_operations? Why has the core feature > | negotiation have knowledge of any specific CCID? When people want to > | merge CCID 4, 5, etc will we need to change net/dccp/feat.c? > | > | I think that this needs thus to go to struct ccid_operations, and then the feature > | negotiation code can just use use the ccid number to access: > | > | struct ccid_operations *ccids[CCID_MAX] > | > | ccids[ccid_number]->deps > In principle I agree with you, what I am asking for is to defer this code > optimisation until later. Fair enough. - Arnaldo