ando@sys-net.it writes:

h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no wrote:

...

Back-relay operations can be factored out to something like this: (...) return relay_back_op( op, rs, bd, bd->be_cancel, Fail_send );

^^^ cancel should __NOT__ send response, since it's an extended operation. (...)

Good catch.

...

return relay_back_op( op, rs, bd, bd->be_extended, Fail_unwilling ); return relay_back_op( op, rs, bd, bd->be_chk_referrals, Fail_0 ); return relay_back_op( op, rs, bd, bd->be_operational, Fail_1 );

I like the idea, but that's slightly too simple. The reason I didn't try to synthesize calls like that was the need to also handle more complex combinations. For this reason, I'm actually considering the use of a mask to fine-grain drive the behavior of the helper.

And your commit looks nice.

Actually what I intended to say was "the _current_ back-relay code can be factored out to...". I didn't know which of it was correct.