On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:00:25PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 04/02/14(Tue) 10:50, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > Diff below removes an old comment about bsdi4 and make it clear that
> > netmasks are not needed for routes to host.
> >
> > ok?
>
> Anybody?
>
OK claudio@
>
> >
> > Index: n
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:00:25PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 04/02/14(Tue) 10:50, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > Diff below removes an old comment about bsdi4 and make it clear that
> > netmasks are not needed for routes to host.
> >
> > ok?
OK bluhm@
>
> Anybody?
>
>
> >
> > Index: net
On 04/02/14(Tue) 10:50, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Diff below removes an old comment about bsdi4 and make it clear that
> netmasks are not needed for routes to host.
>
> ok?
Anybody?
>
> Index: net/route.c
> ===
> RCS file: /home/nc
Diff below removes an old comment about bsdi4 and make it clear that
netmasks are not needed for routes to host.
ok?
Index: net/route.c
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/net/route.c,v
retrieving revision 1.151
diff -u -p -r1.151 route
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:29:59AM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Diff below kills the unused RTAX_NETMASK arguments and the global
> variable associated of two requests where a route to host is added
> or deleted.
>
> ok?
OK, setting RTF_HOST and passing a netmask is crazy talk so kill it.
>
Diff below kills the unused RTAX_NETMASK arguments and the global
variable associated of two requests where a route to host is added
or deleted.
ok?
Index: netinet6/in6.c
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/netinet6/in6.c,v
retrieving r