On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 04:29:57PM +0800, Marek Lindner wrote:
On Thursday, August 30, 2012 23:04:24 Antonio Quartulli wrote:
The roaming re-routing procedure has been slightly revised in order to get rid of the tt_poss_change variable that was not clearly representing the node/client states. Now the code directly relies on the TT_CLIENT_ROAM flag that can be set on the involved local/global clients.
This seems to explain what another patch is doing ?
uhm, after having dived the two patches I probably forgot to change this. Noted.
- This patch is based on top of: "batman-adv: substitute tt_poss_change with a per-tt_entry flag"
Where is that patch ? I am unable to find it.
yep, was in my queue but I never sent it. done a few minutes ago.
+static void +batadv_tt_global_del_struct(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv,
struct batadv_tt_global_entry *tt_global_entry,const char *message)Can we come up with a better name than batadv_tt_global_del_struct ? "struct" is a rather generic term.
well, this function is already in the code. I just moved it. But ok, I'll try to come up with a better idea and send a patch to rename it.
void batadv_tt_local_add(struct net_device *soft_iface, const uint8_t *addr, int ifindex) { struct batadv_priv *bat_priv = netdev_priv(soft_iface);
- struct batadv_tt_local_entry *tt_local_entry = NULL;
- struct batadv_tt_global_entry *tt_global_entry = NULL;
- struct batadv_tt_local_entry *tt_local = NULL;
- struct batadv_tt_global_entry *tt_global = NULL;
Please don't mix code changes with renames. That makes it hard to spot changes in the behavior. Split these changes.
this was needed because the code change introduced a long line and I had to shorten the variables name in order to make it checkpatch clean. I will send a patch to shorten the names first and then resend this patch.
if (tt_local->common.flags & BATADV_TT_CLIENT_PENDING) {/* if this client is marked as pending it means that it* was purged out before.*/Scratch "out".
ops, thanks.
batadv_dbg(BATADV_DBG_TT, bat_priv,"Readding pending client %pM\n", addr);Can you change it to "Re-adding" ?
sure.
/* if the entry is marked as NEW, it means that the node is not* the original owner of this client (in this orig-interval),* therefore it does need to eventually send a roaming* advertisement*//*if (tt_local->common.flags & BATADV_TT_CLIENT_NEW)goto out;*/Dead code ?
yes. I left it there, but I forgot to remote it after the tests.
I will fix all these things and send v2 together with the renaming patches.
Thank you very much. Cheers,