James Carlson ??:
> Erik Nordmark writes:
>> If you understand udp.c then you should be able to convince yourself
>> that your use of udp_v6lastdst doesn't interfere with its use in TX.
>> If you don't understand udp.c sufficiently well to do that, then it
>> might be that you shouldn't touch udp.c in the first place.
>
> I agree with Erik on this point, but I don't think this is actually an
> architectural issue, but rather a matter of design. I'd encourage the
> folks involved to handle it off of the ARC mailing list.
>
> The other issue -- lack of IP Instances information -- is
> architectural, as it involves the support of one project by another.
> As long as we're suffering a pair of linked patches to get to the new
> API here, it does seem reasonable to say that we could include the
> required arguments to make stack instances work in the future.
>
> As long as we're paying the patching complexity price now, is there a
> specific reason to _avoid_ doing that?
To support the IP instance information, and to support future changes,
we could change the API to use a TLV (type, length, value). We can put
all paramters in a structure like:
typedef cl_hook_param {
int cl_type;
size_t cl_len;
uint8_t cl_value[];
} cl_hook_param_t;
Thus, all future changes can be handled.
This will of course change the signature of the hook; but since we're
already here, we think it's ok to make the change.
--
Huafeng
