Hi, sure, will do.
Yes, I’ve noticed undesired code dup in v14 and have fixed everything found
in v15 rebase, same will be rechecked in v16 of course.
Thanks!

Ср, 11 янв. 2023 г. в 01:05, Gert Doering <g...@greenie.muc.de>:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 12:27:46PM +0500, Vladislav Grishenko wrote:
> >   client will move on to the next connection entry.
> >
> > v15:
> >     rebase to master (Dec 2022)
> >     add optional port argument to --remote and --remote-srv usage message
> >     fix --proto option coexisting with --remote-srv
> >     fix --nobind option coexisting with --remote-srv
> >     fix options postprocess mutation lost in v13/v14
> >     recover --mtu-test handling with --remote-srv
> >     use explicit srv resolve stub for openbsd for the future
> >     fix comments
>
> Getting close... but, alas, we need another rebase - the signal handling
> fixes from Selva cause conflicts.  Can you do a v16, please?
>
> Also, please have a very close look at the code now - it looks like
> the previous rebase is now creating quite a bit of (undesired!) code
> duplication.  For example, this new hunk:
>
> +static bool
> +options_postprocess_verify_ce_proto(const struct options *options,
> +                                    const struct connection_entry *ce)
> +{
> +    int msglevel = M_WARN|M_NOPREFIX|M_OPTERR;
> +
> +    /*
> +     * Sanity check on --local, --remote, and --ifconfig
> +     */
> +
> +    if (proto_is_net(ce->proto)
> +        && string_defined_equal(ce->local, ce->remote)
> +        && string_defined_equal(ce->local_port, ce->remote_port))
> +    {
> +        msg(msglevel, "--remote and --local addresses are the same");
> +        return false;
> +    }
> +
> +    if (string_defined_equal(ce->remote, options->ifconfig_local)
> +        || string_defined_equal(ce->remote,
> options->ifconfig_remote_netmask))
> +    {
> +        msg(msglevel,
> +            "--local and --remote addresses must be distinct from
> --ifconfig "
> +            "addresses");
> +        return false;
> +    }
>
>
> ... these checks are existing today, in options_postprocess_verify_ce(),
> but your patch is not *moving* them to the new function, but *duplicating*
> them.  This can happen if "git --rebase" gets confused by too many
> unrelated changes, but is not the desired end state.
>
> gert
> --
> "If was one thing all people took for granted, was conviction that if you
>  feed honest figures into a computer, honest figures come out. Never
> doubted
>  it myself till I met a computer with a sense of humor."
>                              Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh
> Mistress
>
> Gert Doering - Munich, Germany
> g...@greenie.muc.de
> _______________________________________________
> Openvpn-devel mailing list
> Openvpn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-devel
>
-- 
Best regards, Vladislav Grishenko
_______________________________________________
Openvpn-devel mailing list
Openvpn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-devel

Reply via email to