Juliusz,It seems like the patch attached to the mail I am replying got lost somehow. A few other things have changed as well, I'll rebase and send via separate Mail.
Christof On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 12:03:28AM +0100, Christof Schulze wrote:
+.B neighbour-monitor +and +.BR neighbour-unmonitor ;
Please use the syntax "monitor neighbours" and "unmonitor neighbours". Two keywords.Sure.
+#define CONFIG_ACTION_NEIGHBOUR_MONITOR 6 +#define CONFIG_ACTION_NEIGHBOUR_UNMONITOR 7 +#define CONFIG_ACTION_ROUTE_MONITOR 8 +#define CONFIG_ACTION_ROUTE_UNMONITOR 9 +#define CONFIG_ACTION_XROUTE_MONITOR 10 +#define CONFIG_ACTION_XROUTE_UNMONITOR 11 +#define CONFIG_ACTION_INTERFACE_MONITOR 12 +#define CONFIG_ACTION_INTERFACE_UNMONITOR 13
I am not sure what you mean by that. Even if the syntax is changed to a monitor action having a parameter, still a representation is needed somewhere.Please use a single action with a parameter.+static void +local_notify_all_1(struct local_socket *s) +{ + local_notify_all_interface_1(s); + local_notify_all_neighbour_1(s); + local_notify_all_xroute_1(s); + local_notify_all_route_1(s); }
While not strictly necessary the refactoring avoids duplicate code. local_notify_all_*_1() is called in from two places: once in local_notify_all_1() and once in local_read().Why is that refactoring necessary?+inline void set_flag(uint8_t *d, uint8_t flag) { + *d |= 0x01 << flag; +}
Please don't -- just but the bit manipulation inline, I find that easier to read.Really? I find set_flag(buffer, flag) much more readable than*d |= 0x01 << flag or *d &= ~( 0x01 << flag ) It may just be a matter of practice though.I guess I could also turn this into a macro... Christof
-- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Babel-users mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
