Wes Hardaker wrote: >>>>>>On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 1:35:19 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael J. Slifcak) said: > > >Michael> Is there _significant_ downside to incorporating this patch >Michael> before the 5.1.2 release ? > >should be ok if it helps things. >
Actually, I've got a different patch that works for multiple pass and multiple pass_persist, where more than one pass (or, pass_persist) are "close" to each other in the MIB tree. I'll post a test suite to bug# 819154 when it is ready. -Coders, please review. There are some nuances to the setting of write_method, and there are slight differences between the handling of pass and pass_persist. For that matter, all of the extensible object support [pass, pass_persist, exec, sh... did I miss anything?] should IMO behave about the same, with respect to getnext returning "end-of-mib" like results. Thanks in advance for your critical review. -Mike Slifcak [on vacation July 5-20]
patch-multi-pass
Description: Binary data
