On 16 June 2014 02:15, Denys Vlasenko <[email protected]> wrote: [cut] > > I propose renaming FEATURE_DHCP4o6C to FEATURE_DHCP4_OVER6 > as a bit more readable.
Maybe FEATURE_DHCP4_OVER_DHCP6 ? A bit long but descriptive. > > You are adding another "static void *d6_find_option(...)" in dhcp4o6.c. > Having two static functions with the same name and similar functionality > in two different files is not a good practice. > Can you improve existing function so that it does what you need? > If not, add a comment why it is impossible or very difficult. > Same goes for a few other d6_foo functions you reimplement. > I use only four functions from d6_dhcpc.c, that is I copied them and modified. Function original d6_find_option assumes options length is less than 255 (although length field is 16 bit long). Our version uses all 16-bits (it could replace one in d6_dhcpc.c). Other functions can be adapted (fixed and with "#if"s) and used directly from d6_dhcpc.c. However, since we use only four functions from d6_dhcpc.c is it necessary to include whole file? We can use #if-s but ... Another similar question: we put some additional code to separate files (dhcp4o6.*). However, since added code is small in size I think it would be best to merge this with dhcpc.* (append at end, placed between #if/#endif). What is your opinion/policy on that? > > "#if 1 /* not working! */" part looks confusing. If it doesn't work, > why is it enabled? > We fixed code, but forgot to remove comment. I agree with rest of your comments. [cut] _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
