chr...@openbsd.org(chr...@openbsd.org) on 2020.01.18 06:18:21 +0100:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 12:47:28PM +0100, Sebastian Benoit wrote:
> >Christopher Zimmermann(chr...@openbsd.org) on 2020.01.15 11:55:43 +0100:
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>as far as I can see a dual stack carp interface does not care whether
On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 01:45:18PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2020/01/18 06:18, chr...@openbsd.org wrote:
> > Anyway, my main concern indeed is the broadcast noise generated by carp and
> > I would be equally happy if we had a ``carppeer6`` option. Would that be
> > considered?
>
> Adding
On 2020/01/18 06:18, chr...@openbsd.org wrote:
> Anyway, my main concern indeed is the broadcast noise generated by carp and
> I would be equally happy if we had a ``carppeer6`` option. Would that be
> considered?
Adding carppeer6 seems a better/safer approach.
When futex(2) got imported it didn't return ECANCELED. This was changed
later with futex-based semaphores.
This modification introduced a behavior change in pthread_cond_*wait(3).
The diff below restores the previous behavior by treating ECANCELED like
EINTR.
Note that the __thrsleep(2) version
On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 06:18:21AM +0100, chr...@openbsd.org wrote:
> Anyway, my main concern indeed is the broadcast noise generated by carp and
> I would be equally happy if we had a ``carppeer6`` option. Would that be
> considered?
I could make use of carppeer6, too.
