Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] batman-adv: split DAT cache into DAT cache and DAT DHT

["Linus Lüssing" <linus.luessing@c0d3.blue>]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 01:28:16PM +0200, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> I feel you need to answer the above questions even with two tables. No?
> The difference is that with two tables you have more information and don't
> need overwrite a DHT entry with a local one (and viceversa).

Right. Though the straight-forward/easy approach differs between
the two, I guess:

Currently with the two table approach I'm not having any direct
interaction between them. So in theory a node might have a DHT
table entry which is not as up-to-date as a DAT local cache entry
on the same node?

But I'm having a hard time constructing this scenario. I guess it
would need some topology change that results in new/other DAT
candidate nodes? But then that entry wouldn't be that relevant
anymore anyway, if it's not on a DAT candidate anymore?

While the straight-forward / less lines of codes approach with
flags would be to always overwrite and flip the flag, I guess.

> I think splitting is a good idea, not only because of the timeout, but also
> because it makes the state more clear.

Right, and you can also see the two, distinct states clearly as a
user with the new "batctl dd" vs. "batctl dc".

Regards, Linus