jamal wrote: >>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
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. - 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
