2024-11-10, 15:38:27 +0200, Sergey Ryazanov wrote: > On 29.10.2024 12:47, Antonio Quartulli wrote: > > An ovpn_peer object holds the whole status of a remote peer > > (regardless whether it is a server or a client). > > > > This includes status for crypto, tx/rx buffers, napi, etc. > > > > Only support for one peer is introduced (P2P mode). > > Multi peer support is introduced with a later patch. > > Reviewing the peer creation/destroying code I came to a generic question. > Did you consider keeping a single P2P peer in the peers table as well? > > Looks like such approach can greatly simply the code by dropping all these > 'switch (ovpn->mode)' checks and implementing a unified peer management. The > 'peer' field in the main private data structure can be kept to accelerate > lookups, still using peers table for management tasks like removing all the > peers on the interface teardown. It would save a few 'switch(mode)', but force every client to allocate the hashtable for no reason at all. That tradeoff doesn't look very beneficial to me, the P2P-specific code is really simple. And if you keep ovpn->peer to make lookups faster, you're not removing that many 'switch(mode)'. -- Sabrina
