On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, Kip Macy wrote:
Hi,
What do you think wrt to adding the (possibly optional) int *error and
returning the errno rather than a (void *)-1? If you'd be ok, I'd can
prepare the patch. I'd rather break the API now than in a few months.
I would greatly prefer having a dedicated new function that calls in
to it. There are a lot of calls to lla_lookup that would have to be
changed needlessly. In other words:
Right, there are 14 or so of them and at least 2 will need to be
touched.
1) lla_lookup_internal - a static function which takes all 3 args
2) lla_delete - which returns an errno
3) lla_lookup - which maintains the current interface
I wonder if it's worth adding two more functions for about a dozen calls
from basically 2 files; especially considering that we will need to modify
the internal API (llt_lookup function pointer in struct lltable and
in_lltable_lookup()/in6_lltable_lookup()) anyway.
That's why I thought adding the int *error now consistently would be
easier and cleaner.
Most of the callers, currently not caring could just pass in NULL, if
they don't care and we keep the argument optional.
Just as a follow-up. I talked to Qing and the summary is:
* we agree that this should be changed - one way or the other.
* we'll wait a bit for things to settle more and possibly (though
hopefully not) collect another few cases and fix them all at once
should they show up.
/bz
--
Bjoern A. Zeeb The greatest risk is not taking one.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
