Re: New frag6_in function (was: CVS commit: src/sys/netinet6)

[Zoltan Arnold NAGY <zoltan%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

Hi,

On Fri, 4 Nov 2011, Bernd Ernesti wrote:

> I can't comment on the actual mutex changes but the return
> handling in the 'new' frag6_in function is questionable for me.
>
> Why did you create a new wrapper around the old frag6_input
> and replace the return IPPROTO_DONE with a 'return -1' inside
> it?
Returning IPPROTO_DONE even in the cases where there was an error 
was really questionable. The upper-level caller needs to know if something 
happened, usually. The original code was a special case, where ip6_input did not
care about this mostly. But we do.

> If you really need a special handling for NPF I would have not
> gone this way by creating two wrappers around a renamed
> frag6_input. Just create one wrapper (ip6_reass_packet) around
> the old frag6_input and describe a little bit in that function
> why you need this handling there.
> Do the new function belongs in frag6.c or where should it be placed?
I can't do that, since ip6_input depends on functioning like this.
I'm only half-happy with this change; however, I must retain the
original return-behaviour for the v6 code, but that does not enough
information for NPF.

As always, suggestions welcome.

> Btw searching for frag6_in would also match frag6_insque
> so the shortened name is not a good one either.
I'm ok with changing the name, if needed. However, it's static
and not accessible from outside, so should not be a problem.
Someone poking inside the frag6 code should see it immediately.

Best,
Zoltan