[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Back-relay operations can be factored out to something like this: >> (...) >> return relay_back_op( op, rs, bd, bd->be_cancel, Fail_send ); > > ^^^ cancel should __NOT__ send response, since it's an extended > operation. (...)
Good catch. >> return relay_back_op( op, rs, bd, bd->be_extended, Fail_unwilling ); >> return relay_back_op( op, rs, bd, bd->be_chk_referrals, Fail_0 ); >> return relay_back_op( op, rs, bd, bd->be_operational, Fail_1 ); > > I like the idea, but that's slightly too simple. The reason I didn't > try to synthesize calls like that was the need to also handle more > complex combinations. For this reason, I'm actually considering the use > of a mask to fine-grain drive the behavior of the helper. And your commit looks nice. Actually what I intended to say was "the _current_ back-relay code can be factored out to...". I didn't know which of it was correct. -- Regards, Hallvard
