Hello,
On 12/08/2016 07:42 PM, Marcelo Roberto Jimenez wrote:
> I can't look at the matter right now, but I can commit it. I had already
> applied the one you sent me earlier, is this one supposed to go on top
> of the last one or instead of the last one. I must say I liked the
> comment "You wond
Hi Uwe,
I can't look at the matter right now, but I can commit it. I had already
applied the one you sent me earlier, is this one supposed to go on top of
the last one or instead of the last one. I must say I liked the comment
"You wonder why there is a +1?" :)
Regards,
Marcelo.
On Thu, Dec 8,
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 10:10:16AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Nick,
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:04:04PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Linux requires to have sin6_scope_id hold the interface id when binding to
> > link-local addresses. This is already in use in other parts of
Hello Nick,
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:04:04PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Linux requires to have sin6_scope_id hold the interface id when binding to
> link-local addresses. This is already in use in other parts of upnp, so
> portability shouldn't be in the way here. Without this bind(2) fai
Linux requires to have sin6_scope_id hold the interface id when binding to
link-local addresses. This is already in use in other parts of upnp, so
portability shouldn't be in the way here. Without this bind(2) fails with
errno=EINVAL (although ipv6(7) from manpages 4.08 specifies ENODEV in this
cas
5 matches
Mail list logo
