On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:47:00 +0100 Bart wrote: BVA> If I do not receive any feedback, I will apply the patch below whithin BVA> a few days. This patch does not modify the behavior of the Net-SNMP BVA> agent itself (snmpd). It only modifies the behavior of applications BVA> linked with libnetsnmp and that set NETSNMP_DS_LIB_ALARM_DONT_USE_SIG BVA> to zero -- for these applications alarm handlers will be called from BVA> inside agent_check_and_process() instead of from the context of BVA> SIGALRM. Applications that set NETSNMP_DS_LIB_ALARM_DONT_USE_SIG to BVA> zero and that did not call run_alarms() (either directly or indirectly BVA> via agent_check_and_process()) will have to be updated -- an explicit BVA> call to run_alarms() will have to be inserted in the socket processing BVA> loop. Enabling SIGALRM based alarm handling by directly calling BVA> set_an_alarm() remains possible.
I'm surprised that this didn't elicit some discussion. Since it does break backwards compatibilty, I think we need and explicit discussion to say that this is ok. It seems to me that we should document the issue and leave the code as is. Especially given that it's not even the default case. Maybe we could add a warning when the DS value is set. And if we do want to remove this option, then I think the route dictated by policy is to add the warning but don't change the code for the next release (5.6), and then the could could actually be changed/removed in 5.7. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
