Skip to content
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

sixlowpan_sfr: initial import Selective Fragment Recovery definitions #12303

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 1, 2019

Conversation

miri64
Copy link
Member

@miri64 miri64 commented Sep 25, 2019

Contribution description

This provides a helper header to parse and set the headers defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery-05#section-5.

Testing procedure

I provided unittests for this helper header:

BOARD="<your choice>" make -C tests/unittests/ tests-sixlowpan_sfr flash-only test

Issues/PRs references

None

@miri64 miri64 added Area: network Area: Networking Type: new feature The issue requests / The PR implemements a new feature for RIOT CI: ready for build If set, CI server will compile all applications for all available boards for the labeled PR labels Sep 25, 2019
@miri64 miri64 added this to the Release 2020.01 milestone Sep 25, 2019
@miri64 miri64 changed the title Sixlowpan sfr/feat/initial sixlowpan_sfr: initial import Selective Fragment Recovery definitions Sep 25, 2019
@benpicco benpicco added the CI: run tests If set, CI server will run tests on hardware for the labeled PR label Sep 25, 2019
@benpicco
Copy link
Contributor

The headers look good and Murdock will soon confirm that all the tests are running ;)

But does it make sense to merge this before there is any code that makes use of this?

@miri64
Copy link
Member Author

miri64 commented Sep 25, 2019

But does it make sense to merge this before there is any code that makes use of this?

Will be coming in in the coming weeks. It would greatly reduce some rebasing hassle if it were merged (same goes for #12220 ;-))

@benpicco
Copy link
Contributor

I understand the reasoning that keeping PRs small would speed up the review process.
But I think interdependent PRs slow things down even more.

I review PRs one commit after the other, so that's already reasonable chunks.

@miri64
Copy link
Member Author

miri64 commented Sep 25, 2019

On one hand, many reviewers (myself included) seem to prefer smaller updates as larger PRs just feel overwhelming. On the other, I prefer to get my code published and reviewed fast, so kinks can be ironed out, while I'm still working on follow-ups (which to my understanding are seperate units so should be separate PRs)

@miri64
Copy link
Member Author

miri64 commented Sep 25, 2019

Also, in this specific instance the feature is expected to be quite large (think IPv6 fragmentation + reassembly + a lot more extra) so I rather go small logically divided steps.

@miri64
Copy link
Member Author

miri64 commented Sep 27, 2019

Added a check to generically check if the header is any of the two SFR headers.

Copy link
Contributor

@benpicco benpicco left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The code looks good and tests ensure it's correctness.
It doesn't do much on it's own though - but if this helps you with the further implementation of Selective Fragment Recovery, go ahead and squash.

@miri64 miri64 force-pushed the sixlowpan_sfr/feat/initial branch from 7a46809 to 38571c6 Compare October 1, 2019 06:45
@miri64
Copy link
Member Author

miri64 commented Oct 1, 2019

Squashed.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Area: network Area: Networking CI: ready for build If set, CI server will compile all applications for all available boards for the labeled PR CI: run tests If set, CI server will run tests on hardware for the labeled PR Type: new feature The issue requests / The PR implemements a new feature for RIOT
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants