On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 06:32:53PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> This seems to be more stylistically correct.
Is there any more rationale than this? It's never been my goal to
have *every* protocol definition in packets.h, although I can see how
you got that idea. We used to have better counterexamples than we do
now, in the lib/dhcp.h and lib/stp.h libraries.
I can think of a few reasons to put declarations in packets.h instead
of in a protocol-specific header:
- The declarations are widely used and so there's little
benefit in making the users include additional headers.
- There's a clean logical separation in our tree between a
protocol and implementations of it, but it doesn't seem
worthwhile (yet) to make a new header file for just this
protocol.
- There just isn't another good place in the tree to put the
declarations.
But I don't know which of these applies to cfm. It seems that, so far
at least, only cfm.c really needs these definitions, and so cfm.c
seems like an OK place, to me.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
