Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 15:31:46 +1100 From: Lawrence Stewart <lstewart@freebsd.org> To: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bz@freebsd.org>, George Neville-Neil <gnn@neville-neil.com> Cc: 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: <56A30232.7040202@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <C87E7DC6-C9E6-48AC-86C0-BE75972A271D@FreeBSD.org> References: <201601212234.u0LMYpKT009948@repo.freebsd.org> <56A1D6B2.1010406@freebsd.org> <058BD5D5-C1AC-45DA-B6BE-2EDC4D64F67F@neville-neil.com> <C87E7DC6-C9E6-48AC-86C0-BE75972A271D@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 01/23/16 03:06, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > >> On 22 Jan 2016, at 15:21 , George Neville-Neil <gnn@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? I don't object to a name change if it's desired by others, but I don't have any suggestions to offer and would personally just stick with cc.h Cheers, Lawrence
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56A30232.7040202>