Hello! If there's already an iterator then I guess this patch is superfluous. I tried searching for it among the e-mails but I can find it, can someone point me to it?
If you still think this has some values I will take the given feedback and make corrections. Best regards, Tomas Vestelind ps. Stephen sorry for the extra mail, I forgot to cc the correct people in the first one. On 8/29/14, Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org> wrote: > We implemented a more general hash iterator, thought the patch was already > submitted. >
