From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 9 22:17:16 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D9571065672; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 22:17:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sobomax@sippysoft.com) Received: from mail.sippysoft.com (mail.sippysoft.com [4.59.13.245]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35DB58FC18; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 22:17:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [4.59.13.245] (helo=[192.168.1.79]) by mail.sippysoft.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1QUnXP-000GKM-DU; Thu, 09 Jun 2011 15:17:15 -0700 Message-ID: <4DF1466A.1050401@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 15:17:14 -0700 From: Maxim Sobolev Organization: Sippy Software, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek References: <201106041601.p54G1Ut7016697@svn.freebsd.org> <4DEA653F.7070503@FreeBSD.org> <201106061057.p56Av3u7037614@kernblitz.nuclight.avtf.net> <4DED1CC5.1070001@FreeBSD.org> <86wrgvkv67.fsf@kopusha.home.net> <4DF11183.3060806@FreeBSD.org> <20110609192303.GA2433@garage.freebsd.pl> In-Reply-To: <20110609192303.GA2433@garage.freebsd.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-U; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: sobomax@sippysoft.com X-ssp-trusted: yes Cc: Mikolaj Golub , vadim_nuclight@mail.ru, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, Kostik Belousov Subject: Re: svn commit: r222688 - head/sbin/hastd X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 22:17:16 -0000 On 6/9/2011 12:23 PM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > I strongly disagree with this patch. The whole proto API is now clean > and elegant. Well, addition of the single flag to indicate that we are waiting for exact amount of data or just *some* date doesn't make it unclear or non-elegant. In fact it makes that API more versatile, so that you can let network layer know exactly what are you trying to achieve. -Maxim