From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: William Allen Simpson Subject: Re: [PATCH] TCPCT-1: adding a sysctl Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:32:09 -0400 Message-ID: <4AC69B89.5010604@gmail.com> References: <4AC61505.8030701@gmail.com> <877hvdbj55.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <4AC674A4.2040900@gmail.com> <20091002.154808.137771153.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mail-qy0-f173.google.com ([209.85.221.173]:47853 "EHLO mail-qy0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753512AbZJCAcJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Oct 2009 20:32:09 -0400 Received: by qyk3 with SMTP id 3so1336239qyk.4 for ; Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:32:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20091002.154808.137771153.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Miller wrote: > From: William Allen Simpson >> Ummm, I was following the suggested practice of breaking it into >> smaller >> pieces for review. This is just the control functions and headers. >> I've >> actually completed most of the port, and am champing at the bit. > > We can't review the helper functions and infrastructure properly until > we can see how they are actually used. > > Seeing how they are used shows us how well they are designed. > > Otherwise asking for a is absolutely pointless as we have no context > in which to judge the code you're showing us. > Thanks. I'd hand-split my code into much smaller patches for review. Now, I know there are patches that are *too* small.... I've merged the several things you've mentioned, and will post it soon (after making sure it compiles and runs separately).