Re: [Packetnet-devel] New Patches
Brought to you by:
chrismorgan
Menu
▾
▴
Re: [Packetnet-devel] New Patches
|
From: Chris M. <chm...@gm...> - 2010-03-14 05:45:24
|
Patch 0001 doesn't apply for me. Git complains about conflicts on line 425 of TcpPacket.cs. 0002 and 0003 are applied. Chris On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Chris Morgan <chm...@gm...> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Evan Plaice <eva...@gm...> wrote: >> Commit 1: Fix Checksum updates >> >> TCPPacket.cs >> * Remove the logic fork from CalculateChecksum >> * Add UpdateChecksum to handle internal updates >> >> Commit 2: Cleanup IP Checksum Operations >> >> IpPacket.cs >> * Remove ValidIPChecksum abstract >> * IP checksums only apply to IPv4 >> * Remove UpdateIPChecksum abstract >> * IP checksums only apply to IPv4 >> * Remove ComputeIPChecksum abstract >> * IP checksums only apply to IPv4 >> >> IPv6Packet.cs >> * Remove ValidIPChecksum >> * IPv6 does not implement checksums >> *Remove UpdateIPChecksum >> * IPv6 does not implement checksums >> * Remove ComputeIPChecksum >> * IPv6 does not implement checksums >> >> IPv4Packet.cs >> * ValidIPChecksum override removed >> * Abstract no longer exists in IpPacket.cs >> * ComputeIPChecksum override removed >> * Abstract no longer exists in IpPacket.cs >> * UpdateIPChecksum override removed >> * Abstract no longer exists in IpPacket.cs >> >> TcpPacket.cs >> * Fixed ValidChecksum property >> * Only checks the IPChecksum of IPv4 packets now >> >> Commit 3: Join TcpPacket.cs to TransportPacket.cs >> >> TcpPacket.cs >> Make a subclass of TransportPacket.cs >> >> Commit 4: Move Transport Checksumming to TransportPacket.cs >> >> TransportPacket.cs >> * Added preprocessor directive to enable logging without crashing the build >> * Moved IsValidTransportLayerChecksum from IPPacket.cs >> * Moved ComputeTransportLayerChecksum from IPPacket.cs >> * Added using MiscUtil.Conversion >> * Need for EndianBitConverter >> * Renamed IsValidTransportLayerChecksum to IsValidChecksum >> * Renamed for simplicity >> * Renamed ComputeTransportLayerChecksum to ComputeChecksum >> * Renamed for simplicity >> >> IpPacket.cs >> * Changed access level of AttachPseudoHeader to public >> * Removed IsValidTransportLayerChecksum >> * Method is Transport Layer specific, therefore it should be in >> TransportPacket.cs >> * Removed ComputeTransportLayerChecksum >> * Method is Transport Layer specific, therefore it should be in >> TransportPacket.cs >> >> IPv4Packet.cs >> * Changed access level of AttachPseudoHeader to public >> >> IPv6Packet.cs >> * Changed access level of AttachPseudoHeader to public >> >> Commit 5: Change all Compute[x]() to Calculate[x]() >> >> IPv4Packet.cs >> * Renamed ComputeIPChecksum to CalculateIPChecksum >> * Renamed to match common naming convention >> * Updated comments to reflect changes >> * Updated method calls to reflect changes >> >> TransportPacket.cs >> * Renamed ComputeChecksum to CalculateChecksum >> * Renamed to match common naming convention >> * Updated comments to reflect changes >> * Updated method calls to reflect changes >> >> TcpPacket.cs >> * Updated method calls to reflect changes >> IpPacket.cs >> * Updated Comments to reflect changes >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval >> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs >> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. >> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> Packetnet-devel mailing list >> Pac...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetnet-devel >> >> > > The subject name of the first patch isn't very descriptive. Plus you > are renaming methods in the same patch that you are changing the > logic. You've really got to stop mixing the two but patch 0001 will go > in. > > Patch 0002 looks like a good reduction in total lines of code. > > The subject for patch 0003 isn't very accurate. I'll fix it before > applying it since "join" isn't really a commonly used term when > describing inheritance. > > Why are you exposing the AttachPseudoIPHeader() methods as public? If > those aren't intended to be called by the end user then its best to > keep them hidden by marking them as something other than public. > > Patch 0005 looks good. > > > So 0004 is going to be holding up patch 0005. I'll apply the rest > right now. The Packet.Net api has to be carefully controlled. Users > should be presented with the minimal number of properties, methods and > constructors that they need and I didn't see the justification for > exposing the pseudo header methods to them. > > Chris > |
