On Thu, 2006-06-04 at 16:19 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> jamal wrote:
> > This is much better than your old proposal Patrick and i have no
> > problem with it. Why you would need tcf_act_common
> > if you are going to have those elements in tc_action_ops?
> > So go ahead and submit the patches or you could pass the token to me and
> > i will (so we avoid redundancy).
>
> It is actually exactly what I've always proposed. tcf_act_common
> is the single action itself, tc_action_ops only includes pointers
> to the hash table and the private lock.
I may have misunderstood you then or misunderstand you now. Let me be
explicit:
I like "augmentation" (which i thought i am hearing you say now and
which keeps things things in the same scheme of thought) not
"indirection". In other words, what i thought i understood you say
now is (since i am in the mood for ascii diagrams):
tc_action_ops
|
+-- action methods here etc
|
..
..
+--sizeof hash table
|
+--table row lock
|
+--pointer to hash
What you had said in the past is:
tc_action_ops
+
|
+--action methods here etc
|
+--tc_action_common
|
+ tc_act_common
|
+---sizeof hash table
|
+--table row lock
|
+--pointer to hash
So I like the first one, but not the second one. The whole reasoning
behind the macros is to allow for augmentation
cheers,
jamal
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
