From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Marek Lindner Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 17:56:45 +0200 References: <1303940106-1457-1-git-send-email-ordex@autistici.org> <20110430084226.GM21883@lunn.ch> <20110503155007.GA6649@ritirata.org> In-Reply-To: <20110503155007.GA6649@ritirata.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201105031756.45985.lindner_marek@yahoo.de> Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [PATCH 2/4] batman-adv: improved client announcement mechanismy Reply-To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Id: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking On Tuesday 03 May 2011 17:50:07 Antonio Quartulli wrote: > > I think this is the information bisect uses to look for routing loops > > etc. Do you plan to extend bisect to look for TT problems? Does it > > make sense to add a new DBG_TT which dumps the adds and removes in the > > OGM? > > > > > > I don't think we really need a new log "channel". Till now all the hna > operations were printed on DBG_ROUTE, so I think we could continue using > it.. Actually, I liked Andrew's suggestion. So far the HNA handling did not have its own debug "channel" because it was plain simple - nothing much to debug there. The advanced handling we are going to add might require debugging in the future ... Even if you don't plan to extend bisect at the moment, extra TT debug info would make it easier to add it later on. I'd be surprised if the current concept / code "just works". Bugs tend to hide in unexpected places. ;-) Regards, Marek