> > be possible to do interesting things things like state tracking
> > for individal connections, such that every time we move into the
> > next state instead of doing something like tp->t_state = TCPS_SYN_RCVD,
> > we can have something like tp->t_state |= TCPS_SYN_RCVD . The only
> > useful purpose that I can think of would be have a history of the
> > past states in the t_state variable.
> 
> > Even without this ORing change, it would still make writing macros such as the 
>above easier
> 
> No way! that would be even more wrong.
> 
> One state is one bit, and state changes are strict assignments.
> The bit-set only makes it more efficient to test for set membership
> ( "state \in {S1, S2, S3 ...}" becomes ( tp->t_state & (S1|S2|S3) != 0 )
> 
> � � cheers
> � � luigi

When I mentioned the ORing change, I was implying that other portions of the code 
would also have to be in sync with this change. As in -- a simple switch statement 
like the follows will not be sufficient:
   switch(tp->t_state)
   {

      case TCPS_SYN_RCVD:
   }

As far as every possible succeeding state for a connection that is part of the FSM is 
denoted by a higher bit, the highest set bit in the t_state variable will always have 
the current state of the connection. The exception to this is .. when you move into 
TCPS_CLOSED state, clear out all bits. 
So the states would look something like:
#define TCPS_CLOSED             0       /* closed */
#define TCPS_LISTEN             1       /* listening for connection */
#define TCPS_SYN_SENT           2       /* active, have sent syn */
#define TCPS_SYN_RECEIVED       4       /* have send and received syn */
/* states < TCPS_ESTABLISHED are those where connections not established */
#define TCPS_ESTABLISHED        8       /* established */
...


So switch based code fragments such as the above can be modified to

   switch(HIGHEST_SET_BIT(tp->t_state))
   {

      case TCPS_SYN_RCVD:

   }
Maybe I am missing something here, but theoretically wouldnt such a scheme work?. With 
this sort of a bit masking scheme the check that you make would still be valid because 
each state by itself is uniquely identified by its own bit position. 

Regards
-AG
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at 
http://webmail.netscape.com/

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message

Reply via email to