On 11/17/25 03:25, Mike Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 10:07:46AM +0100, Martijn van Duren wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> A long time ago I removed the control bits from snmpd's proc.c, because
>> snmpd lost any use for snmpctl. Revisiting proc.c made me realize that
>> control setup functionality doesn't need to be in proc.c, and only
>> forces us into creating the process, regardless of being needed.
>>
>> Since I have the impression that vmd is currently the most actively
>> maintained proc.c consumer I started here, but it should probably go
>> just as well for the other consumers, which I'll visit if people agree
>> with me here.
>>
>> Diff below removes all the control bits from proc.[ch] and places them
>> in their equivalent places inside control.c and struct vmd. Since vmd
>> doesn't allow for multiple control sockets I've only took over the
>> main, and dropped the TAILQ bits.
>>
>> Thoughts? OK?
>>
> 
> dv@ should decide here. not sure I grok this but at first read it seems like
> shuffling deck chairs? what benefit does this gain?

It is shuffling deck chairs. The short: maintainability of proc.c in
general.
The PROC_CONTROL bits add special casing and complexity to an already
complex file without any additional value. Removing this special
casing makes proc.c more readable, and when also applied to the other 3
proc.c daemons (iked, httpd, relayd) makes them that little bit more in
line with eachother.> 
>> martijn@