[Xorp-hackers] PATCH: Allow delayed start of PIM vif

Ben Greear greearb at candelatech.com
Mon Oct 19 14:04:50 PDT 2009


On 10/19/2009 08:04 AM, Bruce Simpson wrote:
> Thanks for the patch.
>
> If you can preserve existing code style, then it's more likely changes
> can be taken as-is (i.e. don't use camelCase if possible, opening brace
> of {} block on separate line for methods, etc). I'd probably call the
> flag 'start_is_pending'.
>
> What I'm likely to do, when I return (I'm catching up on email now,
> although I'm still on my break, and might have some social stuff going
> on when I return to London) is to flag patches for possible future
> inclusion. I really need to finish what I've started with XRL; it's
> probably easier to deal with stuff like this as a sweep during a 1.7-RC.

I can change the coding style, but this particular patch is useless
without a bunch of other fixes relating to transient interfaces,
since those hit before this one would be noticeable.

Probably best to wait until the next dev cycle when we can work
towards integrating more of my changes.

With regard to XRL, I've a question:

If an application makes 3 XRL calls:

do_a()
do_b()
commit_all()

Is there any guarantee that these are strictly delivered to
the peer process in the order called?  Code appears to expect
this to be true, but I'm suspicious that perhaps it does not.

Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com



More information about the Xorp-hackers mailing list