From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] pkt_sched: sch_generic: Add generic qdisc->ops->peek() implementation. Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:45:54 +0200 Message-ID: <48F73782.1090003@trash.net> References: <20081016094748.GD19019@ff.dom.local> <48F73159.4060700@trash.net> <20081016124315.GA20302@ff.dom.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Herbert Xu To: Jarek Poplawski Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:33011 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750787AbYJPMp7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2008 08:45:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20081016124315.GA20302@ff.dom.local> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jarek Poplawski wrote: > 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.) No, I meant that peek = noop_qdisc_ops.peek and dequeue = something_else doesn't make much sense. But I think declaring this an API usage error and catching it during review is fine.