Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 11:18:26 -0700 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: Tom Jones <jones@sdf.org> Cc: FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Implementation of draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv-06 Message-ID: <CAJ-Vmo=QowhZmVva7XV1WrEQAirX=5Y9TGk_5L7C6KjW1BAeDg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20140801153744.GA76021@gmail.com> References: <20140630170453.GA21404@gmail.com> <CAJ-VmonjB5C%2BDfJkDUeyJrqzHa1ptaQPZYtcyqN1PpKeii51Fg@mail.gmail.com> <20140630205359.GA2221@gmail.com> <20140801141920.GC75551@gmail.com> <20140801153744.GA76021@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi! This is looking better! Structurally though, I'd look at all those places where you only update tp->newcv and instead of passing in the tp, pass in a pointer to tp->newcv. That way you're keeping a lid on the scope of the helper functions - they only get access to as much data as they need so you later won't be tempted to do things like go "oh, I just need to get access to this one tcpcb field!" and suddenly it's not so well contained. As for behavioural - I think you'll have to poke Robert or Lawrence a little more just to get some feedback from them. It's good that it's disabled-by-default for now - that lets it get into -HEAD with a lack of surprise. Thanks for doing this! -a
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-Vmo=QowhZmVva7XV1WrEQAirX=5Y9TGk_5L7C6KjW1BAeDg>