On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 02:03:08AM +0200, Alexander Zubkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 17:47 Ondrej Zajicek <santi...@crfreenet.org> wrote:
> > The only objection from me is that 'other type' option name is kind of
> > non-descriptive, does not indicate it is related to RA options (nor it is
> > implicated by context). I do not really have a good idea for alternative,
> > perhaps just 'custom option'? What do you think?
> >
>
> Yes, I was thinking about "custom" too. But it introduces a new keyword. So
> I tried too choose something suitable from available keywords. But if it is
> not a problem, I would prefer "custom" too as more descriptive.
I think 'custom option' would be ok. It has two arguments, thinking about
it, BIRD style would be more like:
custom option type 10 value 12:34:56:78:12:34:56:78:12:34:56:78:12:34:56:78;
instead of just:
custom option 10 12:34:56:78:12:34:56:78:12:34:56:78:12:34:56:78;
> > Could you prepare a patch for documentation?
> >
>
> Sure, just will wait for the final decision about the syntax ("other" vs
> "custom").
okay.
> > BTW, why not to use WALK_LIST() in radv_prepare_custom()?
> > (just noticed in now)
> >
>
> That is a good question. Actually I just used the structure of the similar
> function for the predefined option and didn't thought much about it. Now
> that you pointed that out, I remember that macro from the other parts of
> the code. And it seems reasonable to use it here, and probably in the
> "source" function too. I can prepare a patch for that.
Okay. I see the 'source' funcions has more complex structure (two nested
whiles), so perhaps it does not fit to them.
--
Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo
Ondrej 'Santiago' Zajicek (email: santi...@crfreenet.org)
OpenPGP encrypted e-mails preferred (KeyID 0x11DEADC3, wwwkeys.pgp.net)
"To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so."
