[Swan-dev] making struct finite_state part of struct state
antony at phenome.org
Thu May 23 11:20:38 UTC 2019
thanks for the heads up.
wow, that is an interesting change! At first glance it appears quite
different from the Feb 22 proposal. I guess this is better!
I say push it now, sooner than later.
I am wondering "st_fs" instead "st_state" would be better? your call! You
probably evaluated shorter names and discarded them:)
Would you be able to do it in one commit?
I think this change will not to affect any output, or test case reference
outputs. However, IMHO the code change is pretty big.
This is why I am in favor to push it now than waiting. Otherwise it would be
painful for you and others.
Lets start a new thread to serialize changes the usual suspects want to push
post 3.28, in the next couple of weeks. Some of us have 6 months of
finished, or almost finished branches to push. Such as xfrmi, Andrew O(1)
patches, this one..
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 09:09:39PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Heads up.
> I'm about to push a change renaming .st_finite_state to .st_state;
> inline all the wrapper macros such as .st_state_name; and drop the
> .fs_ prefixes. While a lot of code gets cleaned up vis:
> - enum_name(&state_names,
> - st->st_state
> - )));
> + st->st_state->name));
> - lswlogf(buf, "%s: %s",
> - st->st_finite_state->fs_story);
> + lswlogf(buf, "%s: %s", st->st_state->name,
> + st->st_state->story);
> it doesn't try to fix code like:
> - bool responder = (st->st_state != STATE_PARENT_I2);
> + bool responder = (st->st_state->kind != STATE_PARENT_I2);
> where the "correct fix" is to instead use attributes such as
> st->st_sa_role or md->message_role. Later for that.
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 10:40, Antony Antony <antony at phenome.org> wrote:
> > Hi Andrew,
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 09:22:52AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > > This continues a face-to-face discussion from last year.
> > I re-collect such a discussion from last fall.
> > If you are thinking of fixing only because of our discussion, then please do
> > not change.
> > I tried to convey my annoyance of unexpected change of a
> > well known variable to a #define! The new one was hard to use in gdb.
> > It is long, "st->st_state" vs "st->st_finite_state->fs_kind".
> > Also code used short version at many places, mixed usage was annoying.
> > Now mostly the long version. If we are not mixing them or rename every 6
> > months I am ok:)
> > I was suggesting to replace all instances of short form at once. However
> > when I talked to you I got the impression that your preference was to change
> > inclemently. And re-write often! The use st->st_state is disappearing now?
> > f937038e9d
> > +#define st_state st_finite_state->fs_state
> > The commit was over a year ago:)
> > Over time the use of st->st_state shrunk. However, more variants appeared:)
> > see 179bf3901. I prefer one version for a well know variable name. It is
> > probably a matter of taste!
> > > It was pointed out that one downside of replacing 'enum state_kind'
> > > with 'struct finite_state' is that when a 'struct state' is printed
> > > using a debugger it no longer shows the 'state' as an enum.
> > And now this proposal sounds like just when I am getting used to the long
> > form there may be another change. Thanks for the heads up!
> > > Off hand I can think of two solutions:
> > >
> > > - redundantly store both a 'struct finite_state' pointer, and an 'enum
> > > state_kind' in 'struct state'
> > >
> > > - store a copy of 'struct finite_state' in 'struct state'
> > >
> > > My preference is for the second
> > my preference is fewer "defines" for well known variables. such as st_state
> > or say st_serial_no.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Swan-dev mailing list
> > Swan-dev at lists.libreswan.org
> > https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev
More information about the Swan-dev