Open rruuaanng opened 22 hours ago
This issue suggests adding new RDS constants.
Both the devguide and the issue template instructs you to explain what you are proposing and why you are proposing it. The sentence above does neither of those. Yes, I know this is a trivial issue, but that's no excuse for dismissing our workflow.
Why are you proposing to add RDS_CMSG_RXPATH_LATENCY
? What does it do?
Why are you proposing to add
RDS_CMSG_RXPATH_LATENCY
? What does it do?
Ask yourself these questions every time you propose a new feature, even if it is just a flag to some syscall wrapper.
Thank you for your guidance, I'll do better next time. I modified it and added the description of another PR. (I think hackers should be familiar with linux, maybe I don't need to explain it too much.)
I modified it and added the description of another PR.
RDS_CMSG_RXPATH_LATENCY
is not an ioctl
constant. The description you added does not make sense.
(I think hackers should be familiar with linux, maybe I don't need to explain it too much.)
Read again what I already explained: https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/127383#issuecomment-2507355807
Please explain how the constant can be used from a Python perspective using the socket
API.
I changed the example to a Python-like form, which seems to be more expressive and more suitable for the Python community. (I admit this is better than my method.)
Feature or enhancement
Proposal:
This issue suggests adding new RDS constants.
It‘s used to query the
rx-path
(that's receive) latency of RDS. Usually used to optimize RDS communication, such as controlling the number of connections and other strategiesHas this already been discussed elsewhere?
No response given
Links to previous discussion of this feature:
No response
Linked PRs