| I think it will still be easier rebasing your patch set on these than the
tree
| without them as you were relying on a form of them previously.
Meanwhile yes. They used to be based on your patches, then I rewrote them at
the long-ago date of last submission, now they are standalone, will rewrite them
again as soon as the changes come through.
| As far as other patches go I don't have any at present.
| I'm thinking of doing some dccp_probe patches to track changes in tcp_probe
but
| haven't done these yet and they would be well away from the other
| changes and not conflict probably.
That would be good - I have updated my patchset also to use the newer ktime_t
interface. I have one idea/suggestion for dccp_probe from my todo list:
often the output is large and consumes a lot of processing power/time to just
output many lines. Is there any point in adding a module parameter, e.g.
`threshold', which only prints every X or Y timepoints? As a sketch,
static int threshold = 0;
module_param(int, threshold);
static atomic_t rate_limit;
/* a primitive form of rate-limiting the output to /proc/dccpprobe */
if (threshold && atomic_inc(&rate_limit) > threshold) {
threshold = 0;
// ...
}
I've had these notes for three months and never got round to them!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
