On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 17:54 -0400, Peter Memishian wrote: > > > I'm fine with that, provided that libdlpi is enhanced to have some way to > > > report DL_CURR_DEST_ADDR indications. > > > > Okay, that's fine, and I can work on that separately. > > The interim libdlpi changes don't look quite right to me. In > particular, i_dlpi_notifyind_process() needs to silently ignore > properly-formed messages it doesn't understand, rather than passing > that error onto e.g. the innocent caller issuing the dlpi_recv().
I'm not following you. The return value of i_dlpi_notifyind_process() is ignored by i_dlpi_strgetmsg(). The only thing that matters AFAIK is that we don't call the user callback for such notifications. -Seb
