hello,
the idea is right...but perhaps a different change can be made so that this if() doesn't need to be so complex and the natural comparison holds true...
it's just a trade, make a change in one single place even it looks complex (awful), make it nice here and introduce more changes (bugs) elsewhere. one has to decide.
IPF_TCPS_SYN_SENT and the other is IPF_TCPS_LISTEN. or maybe that does make sense?
as far as I can understand it is the same state as SYN RECVD state in TCP state machine. I've check sources quickly, It has turned out that IPF_TCPS_LISTEN is not being used anywhere. I think it can be removed. regards sasha 2007/3/21, Darren Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
the idea is right...but perhaps a different change can be made so that this if() doesn't need to be so complex and the natural comparison holds true... I'm thinking of either chanigng _CLOSED to be 11 (and renumbering all of the other states, so that _LIStEN becomes 0) or adding a new one, IPF_TCPS_DELETE. The problem with making _CLOSED be 11 (rather than 0) and _LISTEN be 0, is that _LISTEN isn't technically correct (or maybe it is?), for state that has been created by the first SYN packet, so one side s IPF_TCPS_SYN_SENT and the other is IPF_TCPS_LISTEN. or maybe that does make sense? Darren
