Change in osmo-hlr[master]: 2/2: wrap ipa_name in osmo_cni_peer_id with type enum and union

This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.

A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/gerrit-log@lists.osmocom.org/.

neels gerrit-no-reply at lists.osmocom.org
Thu Apr 30 17:31:08 UTC 2020


neels has posted comments on this change. ( https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-hlr/+/16459 )

Change subject: 2/2: wrap ipa_name in osmo_cni_peer_id with type enum and union
......................................................................


Patch Set 11:

To summarize:

- keith had no time to look at this, says to go ahead and deal with the merged situation later.
- pespin would prefer an opaque data structure for peer id, for ABI compat reasons.
- I'm reluctant to add opaque data because that requires dynamic allocation.
  Concerning future ABI compatibility, I agree that it would be a nice thing but is not a hard requirement. IMHO it isn't worth adding dynamic allocation (and rewriting many patches on this branch) for it.
- laforge indicates slight preference of the patch staying as it is now.
- I would actually prefer a plain char string (the current real world usage).
  My gut feel is that this will remain API bloat forever, but it gives the benefit of the doubt to being able to expand the API compatibly in the future.

Seems like everyone is pointing in a slightly different direction.
But I think we need to come to a conclusion.

In the last patch set, I only renamed osmo_gsup_peer_id to osmo_cni_peer_id, added some API doc and tweaked some commit log messages, added a const.

So, essentially, these patches are still the same that they have been for months

I've probed the patches for desirable changes for a while and seem to hit reasons to not change anything in every direction. So we either find agreement on how to change these patches, or we merge them as they are. I think there is agreement that we don't want to keep this on a branch for much longer, so I'd ask reviewers to converge on a verdict, ideally one that says CR+2...


-- 
To view, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-hlr/+/16459
To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/settings

Gerrit-Project: osmo-hlr
Gerrit-Branch: master
Gerrit-Change-Id: Ide9dcdca283ab989240cfc6e53e9211862a199c5
Gerrit-Change-Number: 16459
Gerrit-PatchSet: 11
Gerrit-Owner: neels <nhofmeyr at sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Jenkins Builder
Gerrit-Reviewer: fixeria <axilirator at gmail.com>
Gerrit-Reviewer: laforge <laforge at osmocom.org>
Gerrit-Reviewer: neels <nhofmeyr at sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-Reviewer: osmith <osmith at sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-Reviewer: pespin <pespin at sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-Comment-Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 17:31:08 +0000
Gerrit-HasComments: No
Gerrit-Has-Labels: No
Gerrit-MessageType: comment
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/gerrit-log/attachments/20200430/bce885fa/attachment.htm>


More information about the gerrit-log mailing list