First of all thanks a lot for your reply and sorry about my triple post. It seems that nabble was too complicated for me. James Carlson wrote 12.08.2010 16:20: > The existing code, though, doesn't really allow you to get into the > middle of negotiation as you're suggesting. And, arguably, the > interfaces are not as flexible as they could be. > Yes, unfortunately I need to be able to get into the middle of negotiation. It's too late if the IPCP negotiation has already ended. > Getting the on-the-wire behavior right (in general) requires mechanisms > that can be run synchronously and without undue delay. That's why the > existing code keeps those hooks out of the main line -- those external > functions are sometimes (and all too often) written to make calls to > RADIUS or DHCP servers, or other sorts of things that can block for > arbitrary periods of time. > Yes my external calls will also be something that block for possibly long time. > To put in a supportable set of hooks for what you're suggesting would (I > believe) require either a set of non-blocking primitives plus completion > callbacks and interfaces into the existing event handling structure or > (gasp!) similar multithreaded mechanisms. I might be missing something, > but it doesn't look quite simple to me. > Ok. I understand and agree, making the hooks asynchronous does not sound easy to me either. > Of course, you've got the source, so if you just want to hack something > into the middle of ipcp_reqci() in pppd/ipcp.c, go ahead. Depending on > how your "validation" functions work, you might produce odd results on > the wire, including possibly non-converging behavior with some peers. > But if you're not worried about that or if it works for you, then go > for it. I did some checks and I think this might work for me. For my application it should be ok that an IPCP configure request blocks for maybe a long time, before it is either Ack'ed or connection is terminated. Do I understand correctly that blocking is the part where you think that problems could arise? Also do I understand correctly that you are not interested in a patch where I would allow this behaviour with synchronous hooks? regards, Jouko Nikula .................................................................... Luukku Plus -paketilla pääset eroon tila- ja turvallisuusongelmista. Hanki Luukku Plus ja helpotat elämääsi. http://www.mtv3.fi/luukku -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ppp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
