| 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20050224212839.7953167c.akpm@xxxxxxxx> <20050227094949.GA22439@xxxxxxxxxx> <4221E548.4000008@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050227140355.GA23055@xxxxxxxxxx> <42227AEA.6050002@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1109575236.8549.14.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050227233943.6cb89226.akpm@xxxxxxxx> <1109592658.2188.924.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050228132051.GO31837@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1109598010.2188.994.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| 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. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Lse-tech] Re: A common layer for Accounting packages, jamal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Lse-tech] Re: A common layer for Accounting packages, Marcelo Tosatti |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Lse-tech] Re: A common layer for Accounting packages, jamal |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Lse-tech] Re: A common layer for Accounting packages, jamal |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |