| RE: Issue 193: Peer SM review | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
|
From: Pasi.Eronen (Pasi.Eronen |
|
| Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:02:37 -0600 (CST) | |
Hi, I finally got around to checking the remaining open issues, and found one nit in #193: > The INITIALIZE state does not initialize all variables. > Non-initialized variables include: > > eapKeyData = NONE > eapKeyAvailable = FALSE > eapSuccess = FALSE > eapFail = FALSE > methodState = NONE > selectedMethod = NONE > decision = FAIL > > The initialization values seem important since transitions > can be based on them before they are initialized. Re-initializing > variables in the INITIALIZE state is a bit different from giving > the variables initial values before they are ever used. Of these, methodState, selectedMethod, and decision are already initialized (though the exact value for "decision" was not exactly right). However, eapSuccess and eapFail must be initialized by the lower layer; otherwise there's a race condition. I'm not not quite sure about eapKeyData and eapKeyAvailable. I would prefer if they were also initialized by the lower layer (in general, variables that trigger a transition in some other state machine must be reset in the state machine that reads them; otherwise some extra synchronization is needed), but possibly eapSuccess provides the needed "extra synchronization". Best regards, Pasi
- Re: Issue 193: Peer SM review, (continued)
- Re: Issue 193: Peer SM review Yoshihiro Ohba, November 13 2003
- Re: Issue 193: Peer SM review Nick Petroni, November 21 2003
-
RE: Issue 193: Peer SM review CONGDON,PAUL (HP-Roseville,ex1), November 14 2003
- RE: Issue 193: Peer SM review Bernard Aboba, November 19 2003
- RE: Issue 193: Peer SM review Pasi.Eronen, December 15 2003
- Re: Issue 193: Peer SM review Jari Arkko, December 15 2003
- RE: Issue 193: Peer SM review Pasi.Eronen, December 15 2003
Results generated by Tiger Technologies using MHonArc.