From: Ihar Hrachyshka
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2018 11:31:23 -0700
> Of course, I also agree that the comment will need some adjustment to
> reflect the fact that now a single timestamp is being updated. Perhaps
> while at it, Vasily could also explicitly describe in a comment which
> scenario the "if" b
On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 4:51 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Vasily Khoruzhick
> Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 19:48:25 -0700
>
>> Update 'confirmed' timestamp when ARP packet is received. It shouldn't
>> affect locktime logic and anyway entry can be confirmed by any higher-layer
>> protocol. Thus it mak
From: Vasily Khoruzhick
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 19:48:25 -0700
> Update 'confirmed' timestamp when ARP packet is received. It shouldn't
> affect locktime logic and anyway entry can be confirmed by any higher-layer
> protocol. Thus it makes no sense not to confirm it when ARP packet is
> received.
Update 'confirmed' timestamp when ARP packet is received. It shouldn't
affect locktime logic and anyway entry can be confirmed by any higher-layer
protocol. Thus it makes no sense not to confirm it when ARP packet is
received.
Fixes: 77d7123342 ("neighbour: update neigh timestamps iff update is
ef
