On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 06:26 +0000, Jarek Poplawski wrote:

The patch #2 is obviously worse and fixes less (of course it still
needs testing for Minoru's case), but I'm 100% confident it can't
introduce any regression (neither take 1 nor 2), which is much harder
to say about patch #1, considering various "rude" configs we could
miss (but we could give them some time to show off). But, as I've
written before, I'm really (really) OK with your decision.

Thanks for the courtesy.
I note Dave already swallowed Minoru's patch; so lets move from there.
Yes, there's a possibility of a regression - I (and so are you) are only
recently evolved humans; we are not perfect... yet ;->
So i would agree with Minoru testing your patch as plan B in case the
applied one starts causing trouble.
BTW, ok - here's a quick untested, uncompiled fix to the u32 classifier
to fix the first rock (which you already worked around in your changes
to the included patch). No rush to submit for now..

On the second rock you threw so violently, after some reflection, I
think it is ok to send a replace twice with different priorities.
The second one will be added and the old not deleted, but if the user
has chosen the correct priority, then things will work out just fine.
And if they want they have to explicitly delete the one they dont want.
It is also not illegal to do a "replace" for installing instead of
"add".

So the only other things left to do from this exercise are (no rush in
any of them):
a) remove all "buckets" from underneath other classifiers
b) get consistency across all classifiers in usage of setup API

If you want to do this - go ahead; else i plan on tackling it probably
when stable 2.6.31 kicks in.

cheers,
jamal