Re: [patch] net/ipv4/net.c

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > On a side note, does it/will it be implemented in the future? it was implemented and it is phased out. It is only present to be compatible. One would do that with user space arp daemons or auto_arp. Greetings Bernd - To unsubscribe from this list:

Re: [patch] net/ipv4/net.c (correction: arp.c)

David Ford wrote: > After reviewing the arp.c file, I made a couple of changes. I fixed the uhm. I meant arp.c ;) -d -- "The difference between 'involvement' and 'commitment' is like an eggs-and-ham breakfast: the chicken was 'involved' - the pig was 'committed'." begin:vcard

[patch] net/ipv4/net.c

After reviewing the arp.c file, I made a couple of changes. I fixed the ip.ip.ip.ip0xNN breakage and also changed the printing routine. Since the ARP mask is not implemented in the /proc file, I changed the length formatting of it and the following dev->name entry. e.g.: -"

[patch] net/ipv4/net.c

After reviewing the arp.c file, I made a couple of changes. I fixed the ip.ip.ip.ip0xNN breakage and also changed the printing routine. Since the ARP mask is not implemented in the /proc file, I changed the length formatting of it and the following dev-name entry. e.g.: -"

Re: [patch] net/ipv4/net.c (correction: arp.c)

David Ford wrote: After reviewing the arp.c file, I made a couple of changes. I fixed the uhm. I meant arp.c ;) -d -- "The difference between 'involvement' and 'commitment' is like an eggs-and-ham breakfast: the chicken was 'involved' - the pig was 'committed'." begin:vcard

Re: [patch] net/ipv4/net.c

In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: On a side note, does it/will it be implemented in the future? it was implemented and it is phased out. It is only present to be compatible. One would do that with user space arp daemons or auto_arp. Greetings Bernd - To unsubscribe from this list: send