Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 16:06:19 +0000 From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bz@FreeBSD.org> To: George Neville-Neil <gnn@neville-neil.com> Cc: Lawrence Stewart <lstewart@freebsd.org>, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r294535 - in head/sys/netinet: . cc tcp_stacks Message-ID: <C87E7DC6-C9E6-48AC-86C0-BE75972A271D@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <058BD5D5-C1AC-45DA-B6BE-2EDC4D64F67F@neville-neil.com> References: <201601212234.u0LMYpKT009948@repo.freebsd.org> <56A1D6B2.1010406@freebsd.org> <058BD5D5-C1AC-45DA-B6BE-2EDC4D64F67F@neville-neil.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 22 Jan 2016, at 15:21 , George Neville-Neil <gnn@neville-neil.com> = wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 22 Jan 2016, at 2:13, Lawrence Stewart wrote: >=20 >> Hi Gleb, >>=20 >> 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 >>>=20 >>> Log: >>> - Rename cc.h to more meaningful tcp_cc.h. >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >=20 > 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=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?C87E7DC6-C9E6-48AC-86C0-BE75972A271D>