On Sun, 2 Jul 2000, Kelly Yancey wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Jul 2000, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > While working on adding dynamic sysctls support, I discovered something
> > that looks like a bug.
> > 
> > For kernels that have both INET and INET6, three sysctl entries (rtexpire,
> > rtminexpire, rtmaxcache) are registered twice - both in netinet/in_rmx.c
> > and netinet6/in6_rmx.c.
> > 
> > It seems they should be registered only once, within a section that is
> > common to INET and INET6.
> > 
> > Andrzej Bialecki
> > 
>   I think the real problem is that the rtexpire, rtminexpire, and rtmaxcache
> variables are each declared static in netinet/in_rmx.c and again in
> netinet6/in6_in6_rmx.c. Do we really need separate learned route expiration
> times for ip4 and ip6? If the answer is yes, then the solution should be to
> move the ip6 versions under the net.inet.ip6 sysctl tree.
>   Otherwise, as you suggest, rtexpire and friends need to be common (maybe
> directly under net.inet?)

Yeah, something like that. The question is who is going to fix it? INET6
issues should probably stay in sync with other BSDs and KAME, and
therefore IMHO the maintainer of inet6 code should step out and fix
it... (Hello?? :)

>   By the way, while we are talking about sysctl, I don't suppose you would be
> willing to review/commit PR 15251? It is a fairly straightforward patch that

I see Jonathan Bresler took it (today).

Andrzej Bialecki

//  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> WebGiro AB, Sweden (http://www.webgiro.com)
// -------------------------------------------------------------------
// ------ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve. http://www.freebsd.org --------
// --- Small & Embedded FreeBSD: http://www.freebsd.org/~picobsd/ ----

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to