Attention is currently required from: arehbein, daniel, laforge.
pespin has posted comments on this change. (
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/libosmocore/+/35079?usp=email )
Change subject: osmo_io: Remove union in struct osmo_io_ops
......................................................................
Patch Set 4:
(1 comment)
Patchset:
PS4:
I disagree that we should put the burden of this onto
the user. It's an easy enough mistake to make. […]
So you set mode (which is
usually a hardcoded value in the code), and then an ops, which is also a hardcoded struct
pointing to known functions, which is a union known by the user of the API.
To me it's fine. To me what you say it's like making a claim that you open an
AF_INET socket and then something is wrong becuase you pass an AF_INET6 address to some
API...
I agree it would be nice to have more protection there, but current state is good enough
for me, specially since changing it has the 2 drawbacks I mentioned early (ABI break, more
memory needed per fd).
That's my current opinion, let's see if other have other opinions here.
--
To view, visit
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/libosmocore/+/35079?usp=email
To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/settings
Gerrit-Project: libosmocore
Gerrit-Branch: master
Gerrit-Change-Id: I138d57843edc29000530bb7896bcb239002ecbec
Gerrit-Change-Number: 35079
Gerrit-PatchSet: 4
Gerrit-Owner: daniel <dwillmann(a)sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Jenkins Builder
Gerrit-Reviewer: arehbein <arehbein(a)sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-Reviewer: laforge <laforge(a)osmocom.org>
Gerrit-CC: pespin <pespin(a)sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-Attention: arehbein <arehbein(a)sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-Attention: laforge <laforge(a)osmocom.org>
Gerrit-Attention: daniel <dwillmann(a)sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-Comment-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2023 15:38:33 +0000
Gerrit-HasComments: Yes
Gerrit-Has-Labels: No
Comment-In-Reply-To: pespin <pespin(a)sysmocom.de>
Comment-In-Reply-To: daniel <dwillmann(a)sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-MessageType: comment