Re: (ITS#5328) backends sending/setting results

[h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no]

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.

-- 
Regards,
Hallvard