On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 02:03:08AM +0200, Alexander Zubkov wrote:
On Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 17:47 Ondrej Zajicek <santiago@crfreenet.org> wrote:
The only objection from me is that 'other type' option name is kind of non-descriptive, does not indicate it is related to RA options (nor it is implicated by context). I do not really have a good idea for alternative, perhaps just 'custom option'? What do you think?
Yes, I was thinking about "custom" too. But it introduces a new keyword. So I tried too choose something suitable from available keywords. But if it is not a problem, I would prefer "custom" too as more descriptive.
I think 'custom option' would be ok. It has two arguments, thinking about it, BIRD style would be more like: custom option type 10 value 12:34:56:78:12:34:56:78:12:34:56:78:12:34:56:78; instead of just: custom option 10 12:34:56:78:12:34:56:78:12:34:56:78:12:34:56:78;
Could you prepare a patch for documentation?
Sure, just will wait for the final decision about the syntax ("other" vs "custom").
okay.
BTW, why not to use WALK_LIST() in radv_prepare_custom()? (just noticed in now)
That is a good question. Actually I just used the structure of the similar function for the predefined option and didn't thought much about it. Now that you pointed that out, I remember that macro from the other parts of the code. And it seems reasonable to use it here, and probably in the "source" function too. I can prepare a patch for that.
Okay. I see the 'source' funcions has more complex structure (two nested whiles), so perhaps it does not fit to them. -- Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo Ondrej 'Santiago' Zajicek (email: santiago@crfreenet.org) OpenPGP encrypted e-mails preferred (KeyID 0x11DEADC3, wwwkeys.pgp.net) "To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so."