On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:15:58AM +0200, Benjamin Paterson wrote: > Great, that definitely makes more sense then :) > I'm still wondering, shouldn't this block: > if (ip->instance_id == 0) > done0++; > iid = ip->instance_id + 1; > instead read: > if (iid == 0) > done0++; > iid = ip->instance_id + 1; > Otherwise the condition done0>1 will only be triggered if the same > interface is in multiple areas with instance ID 0. I think we want the > condition to be triggered if the same interface is in multiple areas, > whatever the instance ID?
No. AFAIK having the same interface with different instance IDs in different areas is completely valid. You can think on instance ID feature as a kind of pseudo-vlan. The proper check would be triggered if the same interface is in multiple areas with the same instance ID, but check that just for IID 0 to make the check simple. -- Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo Ondrej 'SanTiago' Zajicek (email: [email protected]) OpenPGP encrypted e-mails preferred (KeyID 0x11DEADC3, wwwkeys.pgp.net) "To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so."
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
