On Thu, 2006-06-04 at 17:26 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: > Patrick McHardy wrote: > > jamal wrote: > > > >>On Thu, 2006-06-04 at 17:20 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>You must have misunderstood my the first time, the first variant > >>>is what I've always proposed. tc_act_common is an abstraction for > >>>the _members_ of the hash, the actions. > >> > >> > >>But you are still confusing me Patrick, otherwise i would agree with > >>you ;-> > >>Are you gonna have this in a separate structure or within tc_act_ops? > > > > > > Probably tc_act_ops, I don't think its worth introducing a new struct > > just for these three members. > > I think now you confused me :)
hahaha. I am sorry ;-> > To be explicit: the hash pointer, the > size and the lock will be contained in tc_act_ops. The actions itself > (tc_act_common) of course not, that wouldn't make any sense. > Ok, go nuts then; i will volunteer to test if you need me ;-> 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
