From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Shailabh Nagar Subject: Re: [Patch 9/9] Generic netlink interface for delay accounting Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 23:18:06 -0500 Message-ID: <441643FE.6040101@watson.ibm.com> References: <1142296834.5858.3.camel@elinux04.optonline.net> <1142297791.5858.31.camel@elinux04.optonline.net> <1142303607.24621.63.camel@stark> <1142304506.5219.34.camel@jzny2> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: Matt Helsley , linux-kernel , netdev Return-path: In-reply-to: <1142304506.5219.34.camel@jzny2> To: hadi@cyberus.ca Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org jamal wrote: >On Mon, 2006-13-03 at 18:33 -0800, Matt Helsley wrote: > > >>On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 19:56 -0500, Shailabh Nagar wrote: >> >> > > > >>Jamal, was your Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:29:09 -0500 reply: >> >> >>>Note, you are still not following the standard scheme of doing things. >>>Example: using command = GET and the message carrying the TGID to note >>>which TGID is of interest. Instead you have command = TGID. >>> >>> >>> > > > >>meant to suggest that TASKSTATS_CMD_(P|TG)ID should be renamed to >>TASKSTATS_CMD_GET_(P|TG)ID ? Is that sufficient? Or am I >>misunderstanding? >> >> >> > >I had a long description in an earlier email feedback; but the summary >of it is the GET command is generic like TASKSTATS_CMD_GET; the message >itself carries TLVs of what needs to be gotten which are >either PID and/or TGID etc. Anyways, theres a long spill of what i am >saying in that earlier email. Perhaps the current patch is a transition >towards that? > > Yes, the comments you'd made in the previous mail have not been incorporated and this is still the older version of the patch. We'd been avoiding TLV usage so far :-) >cheers, >jamal > > >