[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Lse-tech] Re: A common layer for Accounting packages

To: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: A common layer for Accounting packages
From: Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:53:07 +0100
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>, Guillaume Thouvenin <guillaume.thouvenin@xxxxxxxx>, kaigai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, marcelo.tosatti@xxxxxxxxxxxx, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, jlan@xxxxxxx, lse-tech@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, elsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1109598010.2188.994.camel@jzny.localdomain>
References: <> <20050227094949.GA22439@logos.cnet> <> <20050227140355.GA23055@logos.cnet> <> <> <> <1109592658.2188.924.camel@jzny.localdomain> <> <1109598010.2188.994.camel@jzny.localdomain>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
* jamal <1109598010.2188.994.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2005-02-28 08:40
> netlink broadcast or a wrapper around it.
> Why even bother doing the check with netlink_has_listeners()?

To implement the master enable/disable switch they want. The messages
don't get send out anyway but why bother doing all the work if nothing
will get send out in the end? It implements a well defined flag
controlled by open/close on fds (thus handles dying applications)
stating whether the whole code should be enabled or disabled. It is of
course not needed to avoid sending unnecessary messages.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>