> On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 21:58:37 +0100, Magnus Fromreide
> said:
MF> I have been thinking of an netsnmp_returns_1() that could be used for
MF> situations like this one, but that is just plain ugly.
It's an ugly problem. And I'm sorry to have been the one that created
it :-)
- We can't d
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 12:03 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Magnus Fromreide
> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 21:10 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Magnus Fromreide
> > wrote:
> > Hello.
>
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Magnus Fromreide wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 21:10 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Magnus Fromreide
> > wrote:
> > Hello.
>
> >
> > One could make the functions return 1 on success on 0 on
> > failure,
On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 21:10 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Magnus Fromreide
> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> One could make the functions return 1 on success on 0 on
> failure, but that is a bigger ABI change.
Bah, I misread the code. This
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Magnus Fromreide wrote:
> Hello.
>
> The feature remval patches try to replace snmp_increment_statistic and
> snmp_increment_statistic_by with empty macros.
>
> This fails as
> 1. snmp_increment_statistic_by takes two arguments
> 2. Both of them return th
Hello.
The feature remval patches try to replace snmp_increment_statistic and
snmp_increment_statistic_by with empty macros.
This fails as
1. snmp_increment_statistic_by takes two arguments
2. Both of them return the resulting value of the statistics
counter, or 0 on failure. Th
