-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.1k
gnrc_ipv6_ext: merge _handle_rh and gnrc_ipv6_ext_rh_process #10238
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
gnrc_ipv6_ext: merge _handle_rh and gnrc_ipv6_ext_rh_process #10238
Conversation
67b4249
to
b6da875
Compare
b6da875
to
4d8fae8
Compare
013a4ce
to
9e916ef
Compare
9e916ef
to
f9ed9d2
Compare
Rebased to current #10234 |
4344794
to
49d5ce3
Compare
Rebased to current #10234. |
49d5ce3
to
8e98c30
Compare
Rebased to current master and #10234. |
Oops, forgot to fetch current master ^^ |
8e98c30
to
c522dc6
Compare
8bd46b3
to
b930af2
Compare
Rebased to current master. No longer dependent on other PRs. |
b930af2
to
f01ab11
Compare
Rebased to current master. |
AFAIS the packet is being freed when it's expected. I'm OK with the code design. |
... after the merge, I mean :) |
It works as described. E.g
or
|
The documentation also looks OK. |
f01ab11
to
5a70723
Compare
It's a lot cleaner and makes more sense if we merge those two.
5a70723
to
8701c0f
Compare
Changed @cgundogan mailing addresses as requested by him. |
(and squashed directly). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
code change looks sensible and comments by @jia200x were already addressed. ACK
Contribution description
It makes much more sense (and saves us a huge ifdef), when
_handle_rh
andgnrc_ipv6_ext_rh
are merged into one function.Testing procedure
I used scapy again for testing (see testing procedure in #10234).
Issues/PRs references
Depends on
#10231(merged) and#10234 (and its dependencies)(merged).