svn commit: r294535 - in head/sys/netinet: . cc tcp_stacks

[Bjoern A. Zeeb]

> On 22 Jan 2016, at 15:21 , George Neville-Neil <gnn at neville-neil.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 22 Jan 2016, at 2:13, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
> 
>> Hi Gleb,
>> 
>> On 01/22/16 09:34, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>>> Author: glebius
>>> Date: Thu Jan 21 22:34:51 2016
>>> New Revision: 294535
>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/294535
>>> 
>>> Log:
>>> - Rename cc.h to more meaningful tcp_cc.h.
>> 
>> As a bit of historical context, the naming was intentionally protocol
>> agnostic because it was originally hoped that the CC framework could be
>> shared between multiple CC aware transports, and the design went to some
>> lengths to accommodate that possibility (e.g. the ccv_container union in
>> struct cc_var). SCTP was the obvious potential in tree consumer at the
>> time, and other protocols like DCCP were considered as well.
>> 
>> This hasn't come about to date, but I'm not sure what value is obtained
>> from your rename change unless we decide to completely give up on shared
>> CC and if we do that, this change doesn't go far enough and we can
>> further simplify the framework to make it entirely TCP specific e.g. we
>> should probably do away with struct cc_var.
>> 
>> I'd argue in favour of reverting the rename and if you're gung ho about
>> making the framework TCP specific, we can start a public discussion
>> about what that should look like.
>> 
> 
> I actually was wondering about this as well.  I think it ought to be reverted to agnostic.

I probably share that view but I also agree that cc.h is not a good name.

So before we entirely revert this, can when maybe come up with a name that is better than cc.h or tcp_cc.h and only make this one more change forward rather than going back to the previous status quo?

/bz