Implement destructor #4
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Thanks for your work. I think it is appropriate to keep the state file. |
ssrlive
force-pushed
the
destructor
branch
2 times, most recently
from
b3a542b to
303f6e7
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hi @ssrlive,
I have removed the explicit
tproxy_removefunction and replaced it with aDropimplementation, so that the removal also takes place in case there is an error (as suggested by @one-d-wide in tun2proxy/tun2proxy#104).This should also eliminate the need for the state file in most cases. I was hesitant to remove the code for the state file completely though, as it may still be needed in case tun2proxy is killed through external means, e.g. SIGKILL on Linux.
As of now,
tproxy_removenever operated on the file anyway as it was always called on theTProxyState.What do you think?