[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5006.72.11.80.242.1253314493.squirrel@72.11.80.242>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:54:53 +0100 (BST)
From: gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk
To: "Ian McDonald" <ian.mcdonald@...di.co.uk>
Cc: "Ivo Calado" <ivocalado@...edded.ufcg.edu.br>,
"Gerrit Renker" <gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk>, dccp@...r.kernel.org,
"netdev" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] First Patch on TFRC-SP. Copy base files from TFRC
Sorry for the delay in replying.
>> One future patch will need to modify this file, but now it's really an
>> exact copy.
>>
>>
> Basically the rule with a patch set is that all the patches should
> make sense together.
>
> It may well be that it makes sense to make a copy, but if you want to
> do this then present it with the patch that then modifies it.
>
I agree with Ian's point. At the moment I can only see patch 5/5 modifying
this file (adding documentation); from my reading of RFC 4828/5622 it seems
not necessary to use 'tfrc_sp' variants of the functions computing X.
The situation will be better as soon as the patches are in their own subtree.
Currently there is a benefit in using separate files: the tfrc library does
not support a sender-based variant of TFRC, hence requires further work
and/or
a decision to support a sender-bsed variant of CCID-3/4 only in an
experimental subtree - this requires input and discussion.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists