[hipl-dev] Re: [Merge] lp:~diego-biurrun/hipl/hipfw-performance into lp:hipl
- From: Diego Biurrun <diego@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: hipl-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 10:22:39 +0100
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 04:33:02AM +0100, Christof Mroz wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 09:52:57 +0100, Stefan Götz
> <stefan.goetz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Hm, but doesn't that mean that this branch is not ready for a merge
>> proposal, anyway?
>
> I'd rather mark it as "ready to test" and "I'm done looking for policy
> violations" (believe it or not :), maybe a branch proposal was too heavy
> an abuse. I'll just write a mail to the list next time, instead. Until
> re-synchro with trunk, none of the above apply of course.
Please delete your branch and use mine as the basis for further work,
it incorporates a bunch of fixes and is synchronized to a more recent
version of HIPL.
>> Exactly. Precisely *because* the 'data' member is of type void*, you
>> can assign its value to the variable 'conn' without a cast.
>
> Aight, didn't know that. (Fun fact: in C++ it's mandatory to cast from
> void* to something, but not the other way around. Of course, new/delete
> and templates are preferred in this case, so it's actually a useful
> reminder that you're doing something wrong).
Do not confuse C with C++ :)
>>>>> === modified file 'hipd/hiprelay.c'
>>>>> --- hipd/hiprelay.c 2010-11-30 14:50:30 +0000
>>>>> +++ hipd/hiprelay.c 2010-12-13 21:28:35 +0000
>>>>> @@ -1015,16 +1015,16 @@
>>>>> *
>>>>> * @param r the HIP control message to be relayed
>>>>> * @param type_hdr message type
>>>>> - * @param r_saddr the original source address
>>>>> - * @param r_daddr the original destination address
>>>>> + * @param r_saddr (unused) the original source address
>>>>> + * @param r_daddr (unused) the original destination address
>>>>
>>>> [M] what is the point of adding unused function arguments to an already
>>>> crowded signature?
>>>
>>> For debug purposes. Touching the function body would be out of the
>>> scope of this
>>> branch (even this doc change was, sorry).
>>
>> I'm not quite following. So if they are necessary for debug purposes,
>> why are they unused? Aren't they 'used for debugging'?
>
> Just noting that while these parameters seem important, they actually
> have no impact on the function.
Removing them sounds like a good idea then :)
Diego
Other related posts:
