On 8 March 2013 11:33, Antonio Quartulli <or...@autistici.org> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 11:22:37AM +0200, Mihail Costea wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I have created a patch for this, just that is quite big (~ 450 lines >> the whole patch, with signature, etc). It doesn't contain complex >> changes, just small changes from __be32 to (unsigned char *), a new >> parameter to functions in order to give the IP type and added >> comments. >> >> I've tested it with the snooping mechanism I added for IPv6 and it >> works ok (the snooping mechanism is not in this patch). >> >> What I wanted to ask is: it's ok to send a patch this big to the mailing >> list? >> I don't see how I could split it more because all I did is changed >> most of functions signatures and edit the code to support this >> changes. > > > The common rule is "one change per patch" meaning that if you can logically > split it (e.g. 1) add this 2) use this there and there 3) improve that) it > would > be better to send more than one patch in one patchset. > Remember that each and every patch must compile.
I think I could split it into 2-3 parts logically: 1. Add the enum for IP types and add generic functions for comparing, calculating hash 2. Add generic debug message 3. Modify batadv_dat_entry and all other functions to support both IPv4/IPv6 Some functions from 1./2. might not be used from start, but only later, when 3. is done. > > Cheers, > > p.s. if you want you can send the patch as RFC and see the others say (but > please try to think about splitting it, if really needed). > >> >> Thx, >> Mihail > > -- > Antonio Quartulli > > ..each of us alone is worth nothing.. > Ernesto "Che" Guevara -- Mihail Costea E-mail : mihail.coste...@gmail.com Telephone : +40725245085
