From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] First Patch on TFRC-SP. Copy base files from TFRC Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:54:53 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <5006.72.11.80.242.1253314493.squirrel@72.11.80.242> References: <4AA6A25A.5040508@embedded.ufcg.edu.br> <20090912183222.GA5706@gerrit.erg.abdn.ac.uk> <5640c8aa0909142225q73e477fcga99a48c218d10e0b@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: "Ivo Calado" , "Gerrit Renker" , dccp@vger.kernel.org, "netdev" To: "Ian McDonald" Return-path: Received: from dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk ([139.133.204.82]:33271 "EHLO erg.abdn.ac.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753607AbZIRWzB (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:55:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: <5640c8aa0909142225q73e477fcga99a48c218d10e0b@mail.gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Sorry for the delay in replying. >> One future patch will need to modify this file, but now it's really an >> exact copy. >> >> > Basically the rule with a patch set is that all the patches should > make sense together. > > It may well be that it makes sense to make a copy, but if you want to > do this then present it with the patch that then modifies it. > I agree with Ian's point. At the moment I can only see patch 5/5 modifying this file (adding documentation); from my reading of RFC 4828/5622 it seems not necessary to use 'tfrc_sp' variants of the functions computing X. The situation will be better as soon as the patches are in their own subtree. Currently there is a benefit in using separate files: the tfrc library does not support a sender-based variant of TFRC, hence requires further work and/or a decision to support a sender-bsed variant of CCID-3/4 only in an experimental subtree - this requires input and discussion.