On Saturday, 12 January 2019 05:02:08 HKT Linus Lüssing wrote:
Some old investigations and analysis seemed to indicate a potential reduction of 91.71% of unanswered ARP Requests (45min: 97.95%, 60min: 98.95%):
Does this reduction apply to this patch specifically or to the DHCPACK snooping or both ? Has this patch been tested ?
https://www.open-mesh.org/projects/batman-adv/wiki/DAT_DHCP_Snooping
This patch is rebased on top of:
"batman-adv: DHCP snooping for DAT"
That patch is now called "batman-adv: Snoop DHCPACKs for DAT" and has been merged ?
@@ -152,7 +152,9 @@ static void batadv_dat_entry_put(struct batadv_dat_entry *dat_entry) static bool batadv_dat_to_purge(struct batadv_dat_entry *dat_entry) { return batadv_has_timed_out(dat_entry->last_update,
BATADV_DAT_ENTRY_TIMEOUT);
BATADV_DAT_ENTRY_TIMEOUT) &&batadv_has_timed_out(dat_entry->last_dht_update,BATADV_DAT_DHT_TIMEOUT);}
This bit could be further simplified. Introducing 2 timeout fields is a bit misleading since there only are 2 cases:
* last_update is updated (or not) while last_dht_update is/remains 0 * last_update and last_dht_update have the same value
Why not turn last_dht_update into a bool and apply the timeout length based on that bool. Something like:
if (is_global_entry) return batadv_has_timed_out(dat_entry->last_update, BATADV_DAT_DHT_TIMEOUT); else return batadv_has_timed_out(dat_entry->last_update, BATADV_DAT_ENTRY_TIMEOUT));
Furthermore, don't jiffies overflow at some point on some architectures ? Initializing a jiffies field with 0 appears error-prone.
Cheers, Marek