Re: [PATCH 1/1] [DCCP][QPOLICY]: Make information about qpolicies available to userspace

[Gerrit Renker <gerrit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

| > We could still encode the parameters in the policy ID, by splitting the
| > bitmask, e.g. the low 24 bits to encode parameters, and the high 8 bits
| > to encode the policies using the same combination of parameters.
| >
| Yes, technically we could do it this way. Encoding accepted parameters in 
| policy ID would provide applications with means to check whether certain 
| parameters are supported. But should we mix two IMO distinct concepts (policy 
| behaviour and accepted parameters) in one bitfield? I'd rather have them 
| separated.
| 
Yes having them separate gives a clearer semantics. But it comes at a price - 
to retrieve the parameters, we need an extra function or lookup table. 

Maybe there is an elegant solution which allows to encode the required
parameters while keeping the semantics clear?

| Keeping policy IDs as they are and using a bitfield for just parameters could 
| be a nice idea. It would certainly  simplify checking which parameters are 
| supported - just a simple & and == would suffice.
| -- 
And it is fast, too.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html