On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:05:58 +0200, Richard Cochran wrote: > No, no, no, this violates the transport abstraction. The transport > code knows nothing about the PTP payload, on purpose.
And this is not changed by this patch. The actual transport code (udp.c, etc.) knows nothing about ptp_message. The thin wrappers in transport.c take care of converting ptp_message to lower level representation, which I think should be the role of transport.c: to serve as a translator between the low-level transport and high-level PTP code. We could surely make yet another wrapper around transport_send etc. (as you also suggest in your reply to patch 5) but I don't really see a point of a wrapper of wrapper, especially when the inner wrapper won't be used by anything. Jiri -- Jiri Benc ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test & Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
