Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] dhcp: Add option overload

On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 01:25:18PM +0530, Anshu Kumari wrote:

On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 9:24 AM David Gibson wrote:

...

On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 06:52:36PM +0530, Anshu Kumari wrote: [snip]

...

@@ -178,17 +243,25 @@ static int fill(struct msg *m) * Put it there explicitly, unless requested via option 55. */ if (opts[55].clen > 0 && !memchr(opts[55].c, 53, opts[55].clen)) - fill_one(m->o, OPT_MAX, 53, &offset); + fill_one(m->o, size, 53, &offset);

for (i = 0; i < opts[55].clen; i++) { o = opts[55].c[i]; if (opts[o].slen != -1) - fill_one(m->o, OPT_MAX, o, &offset); + fill_one(m->o, size, o, &offset); }

for (o = 0; o < 255; o++) { if (opts[o].slen != -1 && !opts[o].sent) - fill_one(m->o, OPT_MAX, o, &offset); + fill_one(m->o, size, o, &offset); + } + + *overload = fill_overflow(m, has_bootfile);

Is there a particular reason to put fill_overflow() in its own function, rather than just inline here?

There is no particular reason. I just thought it would be better to have a separate function for option overload (may be for better clarity).

Ok. I think the overall flow - try to fill this field, then this field, then this field - would be a bit clearer if it were inline. Not a big deal though. -- David Gibson (he or they) | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you, not the other way | around. http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson