On 12/20/2010 06:52 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 12/20/2010 01:03 AM, Laine Stump wrote:
Later patches will add the possibility to define a network's netmask
as a prefix (0-32, or 0-128 in the case of IPv6). To make it easier to
deal with definition of both kinds (prefix or netmask), add two new
On 12/21/2010 04:52 PM, Laine Stump wrote:
On 12/20/2010 06:52 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 12/20/2010 01:03 AM, Laine Stump wrote:
Later patches will add the possibility to define a network's netmask
as a prefix (0-32, or 0-128 in the case of IPv6). To make it easier to
deal with definition of
Later patches will add the possibility to define a network's netmask
as a prefix (0-32, or 0-128 in the case of IPv6). To make it easier to
deal with definition of both kinds (prefix or netmask), add two new
functions:
virNetworkDefNetmask: return a copy of the netmask into a
virSocketAddr. If no
On 12/20/2010 01:03 AM, Laine Stump wrote:
Later patches will add the possibility to define a network's netmask
as a prefix (0-32, or 0-128 in the case of IPv6). To make it easier to
deal with definition of both kinds (prefix or netmask), add two new
functions:
virNetworkDefNetmask: return
