On 30/09/15(Wed) 11:21, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2015/09/30 10:37, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > On 25/09/15(Fri) 13:07, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > > This brings nd6_free() in line with arptfree() and adds a userland
> > > notification for free.
> > >
> > > ok?
> >
> > Anyone?
>
> There are two
On 2015/09/30 10:37, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 25/09/15(Fri) 13:07, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > This brings nd6_free() in line with arptfree() and adds a userland
> > notification for free.
> >
> > ok?
>
> Anyone?
There are two differences beside the userland notification -
1. rtdeletemsg() se
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:37 +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 25/09/15(Fri) 13:07, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > This brings nd6_free() in line with arptfree() and adds a userland
> > notification for free.
> >
> > ok?
>
> Anyone?
>
Since nobody has complained so far that arp is doing this,
I be
On 25/09/15(Fri) 13:07, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> This brings nd6_free() in line with arptfree() and adds a userland
> notification for free.
>
> ok?
Anyone?
>
> Index: netinet6/nd6.c
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/netinet6/nd6.c,v
This brings nd6_free() in line with arptfree() and adds a userland
notification for free.
ok?
Index: netinet6/nd6.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/netinet6/nd6.c,v
retrieving revision 1.154
diff -u -p -r1.154 nd6.c
--- netinet6/nd6.c
On 23/01/15(Fri) 19:59, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:49:53AM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > Instead of rerolling rtrequest1(RTM_DELETE...) code in various places,
>
> I am a fan of code unification.
>
> > simply use rtdeletemsg() which also
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:49:53AM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Instead of rerolling rtrequest1(RTM_DELETE...) code in various places,
I am a fan of code unification.
> simply use rtdeletemsg() which also notify userland that the route entry
> is going away.
When we notify the userl
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:49:53AM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Instead of rerolling rtrequest1(RTM_DELETE...) code in various places,
> simply use rtdeletemsg() which also notify userland that the route entry
> is going away.
>
> Comments, ok?
I think this version of the diff
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 01:22:47PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> It is indeed confusing. I tried to check every cases but in the end I
> think that it might be better to decouple the removal from the routing
> table and the rtfree(). Updated diff below does that.
I think the code is not eqiva
On 19/01/15(Mon) 09:35, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:49:53 +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
>
> > Instead of rerolling rtrequest1(RTM_DELETE...) code in various places,
> > simply use rtdeletemsg() which also notify userland that the route entry
> > i
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:49:53 +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Instead of rerolling rtrequest1(RTM_DELETE...) code in various places,
> simply use rtdeletemsg() which also notify userland that the route entry
> is going away.
Since rtdeletemsg() may call rtfree() doesn't this mean t
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:49:53AM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Instead of rerolling rtrequest1(RTM_DELETE...) code in various places,
> simply use rtdeletemsg() which also notify userland that the route entry
> is going away.
>
> Comments, ok?
Seems good at first glance; is
Instead of rerolling rtrequest1(RTM_DELETE...) code in various places,
simply use rtdeletemsg() which also notify userland that the route entry
is going away.
Comments, ok?
Index: netinet/ip_icmp.c
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys
13 matches
Mail list logo