On 16.02.2016 11:30, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Thanks for working on it :)
>
> Thomas Huth, on Tue 16 Feb 2016 09:47:38 +0100, wrote:
>> -static int tftp_session_allocate(Slirp *slirp, struct tftp_t *tp)
>> +static int tftp_session_allocate(struct sockaddr_storage *srcsas, Slirp
>> *slirp,
>> + struct tftp_t *tp)
>
> slirp is usually the first parameter, it'd probably be better to keep
> this habit.
Ok, I don't have a preference here, so I'll change it.
>> -static int tftp_session_find(Slirp *slirp, struct tftp_t *tp)
>> +static int tftp_session_find(struct sockaddr_storage *srcsas, Slirp *slirp,
>> + struct tftp_t *tp)
>
> ditto.
>
>> +static void tftp_udp_output(struct tftp_session *spt, struct mbuf *m,
>> + struct tftp_t *recv_tp)
>> +{
>> + if (spt->client_addr.ss_family == AF_INET6) {
>> + struct sockaddr_in6 sa6, da6;
>> +
>> + memcpy(&sa6.sin6_addr, spt->slirp->vhost_addr6.s6_addr, 16);
>
> Why not simply sa6.sin6_addr = spt->slirp->vhost_addr6?
>
> The compiler will optimize the structure assignment as an inline copy or
> memcpy call as appropriate.
That makes sense, too, I'll change it.
Thanks for the review!
Thomas
