On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:20:56AM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > On 27/08/13(Tue) 10:44, Kenneth R Westerback wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 03:38:49PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > > So I started to play with the routine table and I'm slowly trying to > > > unify the various code paths to add and delete route entries. The > > > diff below is a first step, it splits rtinit() into rt_add() and > > > rt_delete() there should be no functional change. > > > > > > ok? > > > > That makes soooo much more sense. :-). > > mikeb@ pointed out that the names I picked were maybe too generic. This > kept me thinking and I'd like to try to separate the logic of adding a > route to network vs route to host first.
Why? There is no difference between a host route and a network route. The fact that the host route has no netmask should not result into a different set of functions. > In other words, forget this diff for the moment (: > -- :wq Claudio
