report and comment

[Bjoern A. Zeeb]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Mike Silbersack wrote:

Hi,

> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
>>> so we have the same global variables, static, in 2 places..
>>> so one set should go in the pf vars and the other in the inet
>>> vars. The first answers I think of are:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 1/ rename one set

This is exactly what we did with others. See follow-up commit the next
day.


>>> 2/ make one of them a VV_ macro that goes elsewhere.
>> 
>> looking at the code better... I see the entire function is about the same..
>> 
>> 3/ remove the duplicated code in pf and call the one in tcp_subr.c
>> from both places..
>
> The code originally came from tcp_subr.c, then Max copied it over to pf to 
> improve pf's behavior.  I'm guessing that he intentionally left them seperate 
> so that the host part of the TCP stack wasn't interacting with the firewall 
> part of the system.  Renaming the variables in the pf copy is probably a 
> better solution.


I do not understand what this is actually about as pf is NOT
virtualized yet. The only V_ changes in there should be, according to
Marko, be in there to make the code actually compile with the rest of
the V_ changes.

In case we touched a shadowed file local static global variable in there
I would suspect that this might be an error from the original script
run and the change should be reverted.

I'll have a look at this tonight.

/bz

-- 
Bjoern A. Zeeb              Stop bit received. Insert coin for new game.