| > | c) allow qpolicy to use each cmsg header as different parameter. So that
| > (...)
| > I think (c) is best, here is what I'd support.
| > (...)
| Seems we are getting closer in our views, see the just sent patch.
| 
That would be good - what I would like to do is to replace the 12 or so
patches in git://eden-feed.erg.abdn.ac.uk/dccp_exp [qpolicy subtree]
with a single patch and then put it into the test tree.

Will answer regarding the other patch separately and then resubmit the 
combined patch to the list - if you are ok with it, you can add your
signed-off or point out where you disagree. It remains your patch.

What I'd still like to do is some testing on different architectures.

| > I.e. to answer the question, I think it is best to implement "timeout"
| > first, solve the problems it brings up; when that is done,
| > "priority+timeout" will be easy to do - it could be constructed just out of
| > the existing functions defined for "priority" and "timeout".
| >
| > In that manner, other policies can be modularly constructed - for instance
| > by combining "timeout" with a different form of the "priority" policy.
| >
| I'm not entirely sure if such modular constructions would be possible. I 
| prefer to think of "timeout policy" and "prio policy" as a special cases 
| of "timeout+prio policy" with respectively DCCP_SCM_PRIORITY and 
| DCCP_SCM_TIMEOUT not supplied (and thus set to their default values: 0 and 
| INFINITY).
| -- 
It depends on the way one looks at it. Your view is top-down, mine is
bottom-up, both can work. Agree with the parameters.


The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.