> On 10 Aug 2016, at 15:13, Jeff King wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:03:58PM +0200, larsxschnei...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> From: Lars Schneider
>>
>> The packet_trace() call is not ideal in format_packet() as we would print
>> a trace when a packet is formatted and (potentially) when the
From: Lars Schneider
The packet_trace() call is not ideal in format_packet() as we would print
a trace when a packet is formatted and (potentially) when the packet is
actually send. This was no problem up until now because format_packet()
was only used by one function. Fix it by moving the trace
> On 10 Aug 2016, at 15:30, Jeff King wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:24:38PM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote:
>
>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:03:58PM +0200, larsxschnei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
From: Lars Schneider
The packet_trace() call is not ideal in format_packet() as
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:24:38PM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:03:58PM +0200, larsxschnei...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> From: Lars Schneider
> >>
> >> The packet_trace() call is not ideal in format_packet() as we would print
> >> a trace when a packet is formatted
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:03:58PM +0200, larsxschnei...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Lars Schneider
>
> The packet_trace() call is not ideal in format_packet() as we would print
> a trace when a packet is formatted and (potentially) when the packet is
> actually send. This was no problem up until n
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:51:35PM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote:
> I guess my point is that I stumbled over the un-intutiive format_packet()
> behavior
> and I wanted to improve the situation in a way that others don't run into this
> trap. If you think that is no issue then it would be OK for me
6 matches
Mail list logo