Leandro,
following Arnaldo's reply, can you please you the suggested naming scheme (it
is also
already used in packet_history.c and loss_interval.c): I will be looking into
merging
the patches with the CCID3 set of patches, to reduce work and duplication.
The whole lot of CCID3 patches will then be re-submitted. Arnaldo, I would like
to make
your job easier by sending fewer patches (the CCID3 batch is 40 patches, plus
Leandro's):
would you be ok with a smaller number, e.g. 5..7?
There will also be a short RFC before this (regarding locking), and I will make
sure that
the entire batch becomes fully bisectable.
Gerrit
Quoting Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo:
| > enum tfrc_fback_type {
| > // ...
| > };
| >
| > instead of:
| >
| > | enum ccid34_fback_type {
| > | + FBACK_NONE = 0,
| > | + FBACK_INITIAL,
| > | + FBACK_PERIODIC,
| > | + FBACK_PARAM_CHANGE
| > | +};
| >
| > There are no mechanisms other than TFRC (current work builds around TFRC,
rather than entirely new schemes)
| > so I think that this naming scheme is safe; and it would be consistent
throughout the library.
| >
| > I'd hope that Arnaldo and Ian add their take if they disagree or have
other suggestions.
|
| I agree that for things which concept comes from TFRC and are used in
| one of the TFRC based DCCP CCIDs the best possible namespace is tfrc_.
| If not we'll have to rename everything again when CCID5 comes if it is
| also based on TFRC 8-)
|
| And after all, even before ccid4 appeared on the radar I created
| dccp_tfrc_lib, include/linux/tfrc.h, etc exactly for sharing code with
| potentially new CCIDs that were based on TFRC.
|
-
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
