Hi,
General note - this commit has no commit message and introduces a set of
functions which are not yet called. Does it really make sense to split
dco-win support into two commits?
src/openvpn/ovpn-dco-win.h | 108 ++++++++
>
We have ovpn_dco_linux.h and ovpn-dco-win.h. Should we unify the naming?
+
> +int
> +dco_do_read(dco_context_t *dco)
> +{
> + /* no-op on windows */
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +int
> +dco_do_write(dco_context_t *dco, int peer_id, struct buffer *buf)
> +{
> + /* no-op on windows */
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +void
> +dco_event_set(dco_context_t *dco, struct event_set *es, void *arg)
> +{
> + /* no-op on windows */
> +}
>
Those are not supposed to be called on Windows. Shall we assert?
> +struct dco_context {
> + bool real_tun_init;
> + struct tuntap *tt;
> +};
>
Hm.. we add "real_tun_init" in this commit and remove in the
follow-up("dco-win: implement ovpn-dco support in P2P Windows code path")
commit.
-Lev
_______________________________________________
Openvpn-devel mailing list
Openvpn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-devel
