> On 22 Jan 2016, at 15:21 , George Neville-Neil <g...@neville-neil.com> wrote: > > > > On 22 Jan 2016, at 2:13, Lawrence Stewart wrote: > >> Hi Gleb, >> >> On 01/22/16 09:34, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: >>> Author: glebius >>> Date: Thu Jan 21 22:34:51 2016 >>> New Revision: 294535 >>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/294535 >>> >>> Log: >>> - Rename cc.h to more meaningful tcp_cc.h. >> >> As a bit of historical context, the naming was intentionally protocol >> agnostic because it was originally hoped that the CC framework could be >> shared between multiple CC aware transports, and the design went to some >> lengths to accommodate that possibility (e.g. the ccv_container union in >> struct cc_var). SCTP was the obvious potential in tree consumer at the >> time, and other protocols like DCCP were considered as well. >> >> This hasn't come about to date, but I'm not sure what value is obtained >> from your rename change unless we decide to completely give up on shared >> CC and if we do that, this change doesn't go far enough and we can >> further simplify the framework to make it entirely TCP specific e.g. we >> should probably do away with struct cc_var. >> >> I'd argue in favour of reverting the rename and if you're gung ho about >> making the framework TCP specific, we can start a public discussion >> about what that should look like. >> > > I actually was wondering about this as well. I think it ought to be reverted > to agnostic.
I probably share that view but I also agree that cc.h is not a good name. So before we entirely revert this, can when maybe come up with a name that is better than cc.h or tcp_cc.h and only make this one more change forward rather than going back to the previous status quo? /bz _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
