Hi, I've address all the comments received so far. The webrev for changes made after the code review comments are at:
http://cr.opensolaris.org/~sagun/libpcap-postreview/ Webrev against sfw gate: http://cr.opensolaris.org/~sagun/libpcap-sfw/ -Thanks, Sagun Paul Cunningham wrote: > Hi Sagun, > > See additional comments inline below ... > > Otherwise it looks okay to me > > Paul > > sagun shakya wrote: >> >> I've address your comments and generated a new webrev. Please see my >> responses to your comments inline. >> >> Webrev for Paul's comments: >> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~sagun/libpcap-postreview/ >> >> Webrev against sfw gate: >> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~sagun/libpcap-sfw/ >> >>> You have copied various .c and .h files into the src, >>> could these have been patches to the original (in the >>> tarball) instead? >>> >> >> Do you mean a patch to the libpcap0.9.8 tarball upstream? If so, no. >> Elaborating a bit more - all the changes patch/new files have been >> integrated upstream in the main libpcap gate and the libpcap1.0 tree. >> Since we do not have a confirmed date on when libpcap1.0 is coming >> out I'm patching libpcap0.9.8. Does that answer your question? > > What I was try to say was: > > You have copied the following files ... > 81 cp libdlpi.patches/dlpisubs.c $(VER)/. > 82 cp libdlpi.patches/dlpisubs.h $(VER)/. > 83 cp libdlpi.patches/pcap-libdlpi.c $(VER)/. > so if these are in the tarball why have you copied them rather than > patched them. But from your comment above it sounds as though they are > 'new' files - so that's okay then. It may be clearer to add a comment > to say that though. > > > Also in Makefile.sfw, you have run 'autoconf', is there a reason for > running this - it's not normal (I think) to have to do this - if you > need to maybe you need to add comment to say why. > > And just as an after thought, you might want to consider using > compiler flag ... > > Roland Mainz wrote: > > > > the "-xstrconst" puts all string literals into > > read-only memory (e.g. it's shared between processes and > > won't waste memory then). > -- Sagun Shakya 781.442.7344/ X27344 sagun.shakya at sun.com
