I don’t get the point.
Netlink sequence numbers are opaque and are needed only to correlate
request/response. Netlink sequence numbers are build by this macro
(module/owlib/src/include/ow_w1.h):
#define MAKE_NL_SEQ( bus, seq ) ((uint32_t)(( ((bus) & 0xFFFF) << 16 ) |
((seq) & 0xFFFF)))
This does not mean that one should have 0 < seq <= 0xFFFF, provided that when
you parse the response you properly mask both the response netlink sequence
number and the owlib seq (which originated the request) to check only the low 4
bytes, i.e.
NL_SEQ(netlink response sequence number) == NL_SEQ(owlib internal sequence
number seq)
IMHO concrete evidence should be provided that there is a point in the source
where this masking is not done properly, and that is the bug to be corrected.
Fudging the sequence number in order to avoid a bug surfacing in another point
of the code is nooot good.
S.
> On 13 Nov 2016, at 11:10, Jan Kandziora <j...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> Am 13.11.2016 um 00:53 schrieb Enrico Hoepfner:
>> Hi Jan,
>>
>> Thank you for the fast answer!
>> I dont understand exacly , which patch and test from Paul you mean.
>> Maybe I have take the diff in the wrong direction???? sorry for that!
>>
>> this are the new lines
>>
>> < // seq = ++in->master.w1.seq ;
>> < // seq should not be zero or > 0xFFFF
>> < seq = NL_SEQ(++in->master.w1.seq);
>> < if(seq == 0) {
>> < seq = NL_SEQ(++in->master.w1.seq);
>> < LEVEL_DEBUG("NETLINK sequence number overrun");
>> < }
>>
>>
>> this is what should be replaced
>>
>>> seq = ++in->master.w1.seq ;
>>
> Aaaahhhh, that's why diff -u is preferred.
>
>
>>
>>
>> diff -u ow_w1_send.c.orig ow_w1_send.c
>> --- ow_w1_send.c.orig 2016-02-04 21:09:53.000000000 +0100
>> +++ ow_w1_send.c 2016-11-08 20:55:51.351153464 +0100
>> @@ -68,7 +68,13 @@
>> } else {
>> // w1 subsidiary bus
>> // this bus is locked
>> - seq = ++in->master.w1.seq ;
>> + // seq = ++in->master.w1.seq ;
>> + // seq should not be zero or > 0xFFFF
>> + seq = NL_SEQ(++in->master.w1.seq);
>> + if(seq == 0) {
>> + seq = NL_SEQ(++in->master.w1.seq);
>> + LEVEL_DEBUG("NETLINK sequence number overrun");
>> + }
>> bus = in->master.w1.id;
>> }
>>
>>
> Could you explain what the patch does? Two sentences?
>
> Do you think the DEBUG message is necessary? If it's a normal condition
> which can happen anytime, it's likely nothing to be debugged.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Jan
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Developer Access Program for Intel Xeon Phi Processors
> Access to Intel Xeon Phi processor-based developer platforms.
> With one year of Intel Parallel Studio XE.
> Training and support from Colfax.
> Order your platform today. http://sdm.link/xeonphi
> _______________________________________________
> Owfs-developers mailing list
> Owfs-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/owfs-developers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developer Access Program for Intel Xeon Phi Processors
Access to Intel Xeon Phi processor-based developer platforms.
With one year of Intel Parallel Studio XE.
Training and support from Colfax.
Order your platform today. http://sdm.link/xeonphi
_______________________________________________
Owfs-developers mailing list
Owfs-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/owfs-developers
