[hipl-dev] Re: leftover typedefs
- From: René Hummen <rene.hummen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: hipl-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 16:00:17 +0100
On 07.01.2011, at 15:54, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 08:04:14AM +0200, Miika Komu wrote:
>>
>> On 04/01/11 20:06, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>
> I think hip_closest_prefix type shows that no suffix is necessary to
> have a sensible name for the type. I propose the following names,
> which drop the _t and _type suffixes:
>
> typedef uint32_t hip_closest_prefix_type;
> typedef uint8_t hip_hdr;
> typedef uint8_t hip_hdr_len;
> typedef uint16_t se_family;
> typedef uint16_t se_length;
> typedef uint16_t se_hip_flags;
> typedef uint16_t hip_hdr_err;
> typedef uint16_t hip_tlv;
> typedef uint16_t hip_tlv_len;
> typedef uint16_t hip_transform_suite;
> typedef uint16_t hip_controls;
> typedef uint32_t sa_eid;
+1
>>> lib/core/protodefs.h:typedef struct in6_addr hip_hit_t;
>>> lib/core/protodefs.h:typedef struct in_addr hip_lsi_t;
>>> hipd/oppipdb.h:typedef struct in6_addr hip_oppip_t;
>>>
>>> I'm unsure about these, but I'm tempted to think we should just drop
>>> them. Am I missing a case where a HIT is not an IPv6 address?
>>
>> It's there to make a semantic difference between a HIT and an IPv6 address:
>>
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/hipl/+bug/648684
>>
>> My comment about _t -> _td applies here too.
>
> Just dropping the _t suffix should work fine here as well.
+1
--
Dipl.-Inform. Rene Hummen, Ph.D. Student
Chair of Communication and Distributed Systems
RWTH Aachen University, Germany
tel: +49 241 80 20772
web: http://www.comsys.rwth-aachen.de/team/rene-hummen/
Other related posts:
