David Gwynne(da...@gwynne.id.au) on 2016.05.30 17:16:24 +1000:
> llinfo_nd6 thinks its expiry may extend beyond a timeout interval.
>
> so it keeps track of the number of ticks it really wants via ln_ntick
> in llinfo_nd6 and schedules multiple timeouts to reach it.
>
> i think this is a waste of
On Mon, 30 May 2016 17:16:24 +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> llinfo_nd6 thinks its expiry may extend beyond a timeout interval.
>
> so it keeps track of the number of ticks it really wants via ln_ntick
> in llinfo_nd6 and schedules multiple timeouts to reach it.
>
> i think this is a waste of time
llinfo_nd6 thinks its expiry may extend beyond a timeout interval.
so it keeps track of the number of ticks it really wants via ln_ntick
in llinfo_nd6 and schedules multiple timeouts to reach it.
i think this is a waste of time for two reasons:
1. nd6_llinfo_settimer() (which sets this up) doesn