Re: pipex "idle-timeout" work with pppx(4).

2020-08-12 Thread Vitaliy Makkoveev
On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 09:07:15PM +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:38:39 +0300 > Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote: > > We don't need to mark pppx(4) sessions because there is no special cases > > for them. We just need to kill pppx(4) related "pr_timeout_sec != 0" > >

Re: pipex "idle-timeout" work with pppx(4).

2020-08-12 Thread YASUOKA Masahiko
Hi, On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:38:39 +0300 Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote: > We don't need to mark pppx(4) sessions because there is no special cases > for them. We just need to kill pppx(4) related "pr_timeout_sec != 0" > checks and call pipex_get_closed() by pppx_get_closed(). How do you implement that

Re: pipex "idle-timeout" work with pppx(4).

2020-08-12 Thread Vitaliy Makkoveev
On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 11:17:29AM +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote: > On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 23:06:45 +0300 > Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote: > > We removed `pipex{in,out}q'. So now we can destroy pppac(4) session just > > like we do in pppx(4) case. Also there is no reason to allow > > pipex_timer() to

Re: pipex "idle-timeout" work with pppx(4).

2020-08-11 Thread YASUOKA Masahiko
On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 23:06:45 +0300 Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote: > We removed `pipex{in,out}q'. So now we can destroy pppac(4) session just > like we do in pppx(4) case. Also there is no reason to allow > pipex_timer() to destroy sessions - userland will do this by > PIPEXDSESSION. This permit us to

Re: pipex "idle-timeout" work with pppx(4).

2020-08-11 Thread Vitaliy Makkoveev
On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 01:36:38AM +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote: > > my diff is to make pppx(4) have the same "idle-timeout" > functionality. I strongly think pppx(4) must have the same > functionalities of pppac(4) because I don't see any reason to have > any difference between pppx(4) and

Re: pipex "idle-timeout" work with pppx(4).

2020-08-11 Thread Vitaliy Makkoveev
On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 12:37:13AM +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 16:30:27 +0300 > Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 03:12:02PM +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote: > >> On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 20:03:50 +0300 > >> Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote: > >> > On Sun, Aug

Re: pipex "idle-timeout" work with pppx(4).

2020-08-11 Thread YASUOKA Masahiko
my diff is to make pppx(4) have the same "idle-timeout" functionality. I strongly think pppx(4) must have the same functionalities of pppac(4) because I don't see any reason to have any difference between pppx(4) and pppac(4). Your pseudo code is suggesting another thing. You would like to

Re: pipex "idle-timeout" work with pppx(4).

2020-08-11 Thread YASUOKA Masahiko
Hi, On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 16:30:27 +0300 Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote: > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 03:12:02PM +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote: >> On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 20:03:50 +0300 >> Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote: >> > On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 06:20:13PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote: >> >> You propose to

Re: pipex "idle-timeout" work with pppx(4).

2020-08-10 Thread Vitaliy Makkoveev
> On 10 Aug 2020, at 19:53, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote: > > We are doing all wrong :) > > We can just unlink pppx(4) related session from `pipex_session_list' if > it's time expired. But since this unlinked session is still exists in > pppx(4) layer we can access through pppx_get_closed()

Re: pipex "idle-timeout" work with pppx(4).

2020-08-10 Thread Vitaliy Makkoveev
We are doing all wrong :) We can just unlink pppx(4) related session from `pipex_session_list' if it's time expired. But since this unlinked session is still exists in pppx(4) layer we can access through pppx_get_closed() without any search. We should only add flag to session which identifies it

Re: pipex "idle-timeout" work with pppx(4).

2020-08-10 Thread Vitaliy Makkoveev
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 03:12:02PM +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote: > Hi, > > Thank you for your review. > > On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 20:03:50 +0300 > Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 06:20:13PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote: > >> You propose to unlink pppx(4) related session which

Re: pipex "idle-timeout" work with pppx(4).

2020-08-10 Thread YASUOKA Masahiko
Hi, Thank you for your review. On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 20:03:50 +0300 Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote: > On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 06:20:13PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote: >> You propose to unlink pppx(4) related session which reached timeout. I'm >> ok with this direction. But I see no reason to rework

Re: pipex "idle-timeout" work with pppx(4).

2020-08-09 Thread Vitaliy Makkoveev
SED) { req->plr_ppp_id[req->plr_ppp_id_count++] = pxi->pxi_session->ppp_id; pppx_if_destroy(pxi); } } return 0; } > Also I have one inlined comment within your diff. > > On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 0

Re: pipex "idle-timeout" work with pppx(4).

2020-08-09 Thread Vitaliy Makkoveev
return 0; } cut end Also I have one inlined comment within your diff. On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 05:14:13PM +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote: > This diff makes pipex "idle-timeout" work with pppx(4). > &

pipex "idle-timeout" work with pppx(4).

2020-08-09 Thread YASUOKA Masahiko
This diff makes pipex "idle-timeout" work with pppx(4). ok? Index: sys/net/if_pppx.c === RCS file: /disk/cvs/openbsd/src/sys/net/if_pppx.c,v retrieving revision 1.98 diff -u -p -r1.98 if_pppx.c --- sys/net/if_pppx.c 28 J