Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Implement DAT for IPv6

[Antonio Quartulli <ordex@autistici.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1769 bytes --]

On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 12:11:42PM +0200, Mihail Costea wrote:
> On 8 March 2013 11:33, Antonio Quartulli <ordex@autistici.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 11:22:37AM +0200, Mihail Costea wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I have created a patch for this, just that is quite big (~ 450 lines
> >> the whole patch, with signature, etc). It doesn't contain complex
> >> changes, just small changes from __be32 to (unsigned char *), a new
> >> parameter to functions in order to give the IP type and added
> >> comments.
> >>
> >> I've tested it with the snooping mechanism I added for IPv6 and it
> >> works ok (the snooping mechanism is not in this patch).
> >>
> >> What I wanted to ask is: it's ok to send a patch this big to the mailing list?
> >> I don't see how I could split it more because all I did is changed
> >> most of functions signatures and edit the code to support this
> >> changes.
> >
> >
> > The common rule is "one change per patch" meaning that if you can logically
> > split it (e.g. 1) add this 2) use this there and there 3) improve that) it would
> > be better to send more than one patch in one patchset.
> > Remember that each and every patch must compile.
> 
> I think I could split it into 2-3 parts logically:
> 1. Add the enum for IP types and add generic functions for comparing,
> calculating hash
> 2. Add generic debug message
> 3. Modify batadv_dat_entry  and all other functions to support both IPv4/IPv6
> 
> Some functions from 1./2. might not be used from start, but only
> later, when 3. is done.

Well, looking at the code it is easier to judge :)
Feel free to send your RFC/PATCH to the ml.

Cheers,

-- 
Antonio Quartulli

..each of us alone is worth nothing..
Ernesto "Che" Guevara

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]