> > At L21736 ip_if.c, shouldn't the check be > > > > if (!breinfo[i].bi_willdie || bireinfo[i].bi_haverep) > > continue; > > You're right that the test at 21736 is wrong, but I think the above isn't > quite right either. Instead, I think we want to identify on IREs that will > die and still need replacement. Or, conversely, that we can ignore IREs > that (a) won't die, (b) aren't needed, or (c) are needed but have already > been replaced. That would be: > > if (!bireinfo[i].bi_willdie || bireinfo[i].bi_haverep || > !bireinfo[i].bi_needrep) > continue;
Oops -- I just went to apply this change and realized that I was thinking about the wrong chunk of code. I agree with your original suggestion, and will make the change. -- meem _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
