On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 10:21:09AM -0700, Sangeeta Misra wrote:
> Dan McDonald wrote:
> >>RESP: CLARIFY
> >> Are you referring to the follwoing comment in
> >> ip_rput_process_notdata():
> >> /* Copy b_next - used in M_BREAK messages */
> >> on parent ws's ip.c (L12996)?
> >
> >
> >No, but that *is* related.
> >
> Which line in specific were you commenting to
In the old code: Lines 13246 and 13262
In the new code: Lines 13509 and 13525 - You still do b_next, but don't
mention WHY!
> I got the M_BREAK cleanup ( justification and the code cleanup) checked
> out by THiru, but yet we will test this as you point out above.
You may be able to get rid of the b_next massaging too. If you can't, please
restate why you need to massage b_next in ip_rput().
Thanks!
Dan
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
