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]
I've added the test suite. If the patch is not applied, you do not see the second OID group until N=3 and N=4 (those cases MIX pass and pass_persist). with the patch applied, the cases where multiple directives are used (N=1, all pass, and N=2, all pass_persist) are visited during the test snmpwalk.
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training.
Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 - digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches, unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-coders mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
