Re: UDP Lite support

On 2014/04/02 04:53, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Hi!

Hi Adrian,

>
> On 31 March 2014 19:20, Kevin Lo <kevlo@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
>
>> Thank you John.  glebius@ suggests we don't need to have two absolutely
>> equal uma zones since most systems don't run UDP-Lite.
>> If practice shows that a differentiation at zone level between UDP and
>> UDP-Lite PCBs is important, then it could be done later.
>>
>> Following up with a fourth version of the udp-lite patch.
>> http://people.freebsd.org/~kevlo/udplite.diff
>>
>> On top of the previous versions, this:
>>          - removes a uma zone for udp-lite
>>          - udp_common_ctlinput() belongs under #ifdef INET
>>          - removes sysctl nodes for udp-lite.
>>          - bumps version and adds my copyright.
> I've just briefly review this.
>
> I recommend turning the places where you do this:
>
> + pcbinfo = (pr == IPPROTO_UDP) ? &V_udbinfo : &V_ulitecbinfo;
>
> .. into some inline function which returns the correct pcbinfo based
> on what 'pr' is.
>
> That way if someone wants to add another derivative UDP handler they
> won't have to go and change those conditionals to yet another set of
> nested conditionals.
>
> Same for:
>
> + pcblist = (pr == IPPROTO_UDP) ? &V_udb : &V_ulitecb;
>
> Other than that, it looks good.

Thanks for the review.  I added two inline functions get_inpcbinfo() and
get_pcblist() which return the correct pcbinfo and pcblist respectively.

The current version of the patch is in the same location, thanks.

>
>
> -a

     Kevin

_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"