ipcpd: Use eid in fa protocol instead of fd

The flow allocator protocol used fd in the message exchange since eids
were directly mapped to fds. It's better to name them eid in the
protocol to avoid confusion.

Signed-off-by: Dimitri Staessens <dimitri.staessens@ugent.be>
Signed-off-by: Sander Vrijders <sander.vrijders@ugent.be>

1 files changed, 14 insertions, 14 deletions

diff --git a/src/ipcpd/normal/fa.c b/src/ipcpd/normal/fa.c
index 00e93fb7..067a6e73 100644
--- a/src/ipcpd/normal/fa.c
+++ b/src/ipcpd/normal/fa.c
@@ -51,8 +51,8 @@
 
 struct fa_msg {
         uint64_t s_addr;
-        uint32_t r_fd;
-        uint32_t s_fd;
+        uint32_t r_eid;
+        uint32_t s_eid;
         uint8_t  code;
         uint8_t  qc;
         int8_t   response;
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ struct fa_msg {
 
 struct {
         pthread_rwlock_t   flows_lock;
-        int                r_fd[PROG_MAX_FLOWS];
+        int                r_eid[PROG_MAX_FLOWS];
         uint64_t           r_addr[PROG_MAX_FLOWS];
         int                fd;
 
@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ static void sdu_handler(int                  fd,
 {
         pthread_rwlock_rdlock(&fa.flows_lock);
 
-        if (dt_write_sdu(fa.r_addr[fd], qc, fa.r_fd[fd], sdb)) {
+        if (dt_write_sdu(fa.r_addr[fd], qc, fa.r_eid[fd], sdb)) {
                 pthread_rwlock_unlock(&fa.flows_lock);
                 ipcp_sdb_release(sdb);
                 log_warn("Failed to forward SDU.");
@@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ static void sdu_handler(int                  fd,
 
 static void destroy_conn(int fd)
 {
-        fa.r_fd[fd]   = -1;
+        fa.r_eid[fd]   = -1;
         fa.r_addr[fd] = INVALID_ADDR;
 }
 
@@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ static void fa_post_sdu(void *               comp,
 
                 pthread_rwlock_wrlock(&fa.flows_lock);
 
-                fa.r_fd[fd]   = msg->s_fd;
+                fa.r_eid[fd]  = msg->s_eid;
                 fa.r_addr[fd] = msg->s_addr;
 
                 pthread_rwlock_unlock(&fa.flows_lock);
@@ -166,14 +166,14 @@ static void fa_post_sdu(void *               comp,
         case FLOW_REPLY:
                 pthread_rwlock_wrlock(&fa.flows_lock);
 
-                fa.r_fd[msg->r_fd] = msg->s_fd;
+                fa.r_eid[msg->r_eid] = msg->s_eid;
 
-                ipcp_flow_alloc_reply(msg->r_fd, msg->response);
+                ipcp_flow_alloc_reply(msg->r_eid, msg->response);
 
                 if (msg->response < 0)
-                        destroy_conn(msg->r_fd);
+                        destroy_conn(msg->r_eid);
                 else
-                        sdu_sched_add(fa.sdu_sched, msg->r_fd);
+                        sdu_sched_add(fa.sdu_sched, msg->r_eid);
 
                 pthread_rwlock_unlock(&fa.flows_lock);
 
@@ -240,7 +240,7 @@ int fa_alloc(int             fd,
         msg         = (struct fa_msg *) shm_du_buff_head(sdb);
         msg->code   = FLOW_REQ;
         msg->qc     = qc;
-        msg->s_fd   = fd;
+        msg->s_eid  = fd;
         msg->s_addr = ipcpi.dt_addr;
 
         memcpy(msg + 1, dst, ipcp_dir_hash_len());
@@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ int fa_alloc(int             fd,
 
         pthread_rwlock_wrlock(&fa.flows_lock);
 
-        assert(fa.r_fd[fd] == -1);
+        assert(fa.r_eid[fd] == -1);
         fa.r_addr[fd] = addr;
 
         pthread_rwlock_unlock(&fa.flows_lock);
@@ -299,8 +299,8 @@ int fa_alloc_resp(int fd,
 
         msg           = (struct fa_msg *) shm_du_buff_head(sdb);
         msg->code     = FLOW_REPLY;
-        msg->r_fd     = fa.r_fd[fd];
-        msg->s_fd     = fd;
+        msg->r_eid    = fa.r_eid[fd];
+        msg->s_eid    = fd;
         msg->response = response;
 
         if (response < 0) {