[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: A common layer for Accounting packages
From: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 06:52:04 -0300
Cc: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>, Guillaume Thouvenin <guillaume.thouvenin@xxxxxxxx>, kaigai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, jlan@xxxxxxx, lse-tech@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, elsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <>
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
User-agent: Mutt/
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 02:53:07PM +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:
> * 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.

Yep - this far from "reinventing the wheel". ;)

> It is of course not needed to avoid sending unnecessary messages.

Thats the goal, thanks.

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