On Monday 11 February 2008 11:30, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> On Saturday 09 February 2008 09:00:03 Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>
> > Sorry about that. Maybe it was a bit simpler, but new one is smaller.
>
> About the option_string addition, I don't know how smaller it is, but I think
> it is more error prone than the previous interface (it is much easier to
> accidentally introduce a bug).
>
> > + for (i = 0; dhcp_sub_options[i].code; i++)
> > {
> >
> > Loop? Why? dhcp_sub_options has only one element.
>
> Other options could be added in the future. I only needed the first, but I
> made the code generic.
This is understandable, but busybox's goal is small size.
We are much more paranoid about it than usual.
> > + /* gennet additions */
> > + { OPTION_STATIC_ROUTES|OPTION_REQ, DHCP_STATIC_ROUTES}, /*
> > sroutes */ + { OPTION_SUBOPTIONS|OPTION_REQ,
> > DHCP_VENDOR_INFO}, /* vendorinfo */
>
> > I don't this these options should be requested by default.
> > Please remove OPTION_REQ bit.
>
> These options must be requested in order to be sent by the peer. Is there
> other way to request them without adding this bit?
-O option does this:
# ./busybox udhcpc --help
BusyBox v1.10.0.svn (2008-02-11 08:44:07 GMT) multi-call binary
Usage: udhcpc [-Cfbnqtv] [-c CID] [-V VCLS] [-H HOSTNAME] [-i INTERFACE]
[-p pidfile] [-r IP] [-s script] [-O dhcp-option]...
...
-O,--request-option=OPT Request DHCP option OPT from server
...
--
vda
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
[email protected]
http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
