On fre, 2007-03-30 at 10:26 -0700, Wes Hardaker wrote: > >>>>> "MF" == Magnus Fromreide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > MF> I am certain that there is some good reason and hope somebody > MF> could tell me, but why is the AgentX master module initiated by a > MF> separate call to real_init_agentx in snmp_agent.c? > > Yes there is. Now if only we could remember it. Oh dear, that is a way to common problem.
> We can certainly wish it was commented as to why. We could certainly > have our wishes unfulfilled. Well, I have been on an expedition down in the CVS repository (I agree with your wish for cvs status -v) and then over the mailing list archives and found that the patch that moved the call to real_init_master into snmp_app.c was the patch that added the "master" config directive. > I do remember discussing it "way back when" though. I have spent some time reading old mailing list messages - I found <http://marc.info/?l=net-snmp-coders&m=98700383303199&w=2> and that only looks related by a fairly long shot, especially since I run the init routine after the config reading. (BTW 2001-03 was an interesting month with lots of AgentX and a nice config reading debate) > MF> Or, expressed in another way, why is the below patch a bad idea? > > Have you tried it? It runs the test suite and I have made some tests but more would probably not do any harm. > With various types of config? Well, that is a lacking point. On the other hand the "Work in progress" note probably could be used to forgive that the testing as to yet is somewhat spotty. > MF> * Move the master agent code from libnetsnmpagent to > MF> libnetsnmpmibs > > That, however, seems like a different question. Yes, I agree. > Why is it in the mib code? cause it isn't a mib implementation and is > part of the agent, really... This I think is debateable. I only moved the master support, not the subagent support, and the master part could be viewed as a kind of generic mib implementation, just like the proxy handling. Yes, I wish to factor out SMUX as well but I ain't there yet. > Regardless of where it is called in the init process, I still think it > should be in libnetsnmpagent? > > MF> (Known drawbacks, the patch is a work in progress: > MF> * It will reparse the agentx config, possily it should handle > MF> duplicates there better) > > Sounds inefficient. It depends - the reparsing happens when the user tells the agent to reparse it's config using SIGHUP. At that time I think it is quite ok to reparse regardless of the cost. My doubt is to what will happen during the reparse if some of those config items have changed. > What's the end goal, just out of curiosity? General clean up or some > other problem? General clean up is one part - I dislike special cases and the initialization of AgentX (and to an even greater degree SMUX) in init_master_agent() looks like one big special case. Additionally this separates out the AgentX support nicely from the main agent so it becomes a cleaner module using only the same interfaces as any other MIB module. A secondary part is that I wish to minimize the amount of code that must be included in the agent to a bare minimum. /MF ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
