I don't really understand your answer (note: I'm not saying that you are wrong).
If you understand what's up, could you add a comment to make it understandable to other readers? Testing is indispensible but it isn't sufficient. | From: Andrew Cagney <[email protected]> | Fortunately, it is IKEv1. Move along, nothing to see. | | -- | | While both complete_v[12]_state_transition() implementations stink. | We don't need coverity to tell us that. The good news is that we've | managed to compensate by accumulating reasonable test coverage. | | On 3 June 2018 at 20:34, D. Hugh Redelmeier <[email protected]> wrote: | > void complete_v1_state_transition(struct msg_digest **mdp, stf_status result) | > { | > struct msg_digest *md = *mdp; | > passert(md != NULL); | > | > ... | > | > switch (result) { | > case STF_SUSPEND: | > set_cur_state(md->st); /* might have changed */ | > if (*mdp != NULL) { | > | > How could *mdp be NULL? | > | > (If I remember correctly, many years ago that could happen. It was part | > of the signal from the state transition function to | > complete_v1_state_transition that md should not be freed. But much | > has changed since then.) | > | > Andrew: the closest fingerprints are yours. Can you have a look? | > _______________________________________________ | > Swan-dev mailing list | > [email protected] | > https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev | _______________________________________________ Swan-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev
