At Sun, 21 Dec 2014 14:14:42 +0100, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
Dne 19.12.2014 v 22:17 Pierre-Louis Bossart napsal(a):
Thanks for the review Jaroslav
- ext_info member is not required - the standard info field has enough free bits
Well this was added at Takashi's request, the initial patches didn't rely on this extension...I can roll back those changes if this is the consensus.
Yes, every developer has it's own opinions.. I would just not to add next field until the all bits are not used.
This was what we thought at first. But later on, I found that it's a bit ugly. Namely, assume you'll add more tstamp types to be advertised in INFO bit, but we already add yet another irrelevant bit beforehand. Then the whole type bits will become sparse.
Since this is a (possibly) extensible bitmask, having it separately would make sense.
Though, I have no strong opinion on this. If you have a good counter argument, I'll be your ears :)
thanks,
Takashi